We had Shepherd perfect the whole game. Their best hitter comes up and we have Bradford so shallow that he cannot run down a deep fly ball. I am not sure about the second one but I know that if Bradford had been in the right postion he could have caught the catcher's deep ball to center.
I don't understand our postioning in the of
- Thread starter therightway
- Start date
We had Shepherd perfect the whole game. Their best hitter comes up and we have Bradford so shallow that he cannot run down a deep fly ball. I am not sure about the second one but I know that if Bradford had been in the right postion he could have caught the catcher's deep ball to center.
with that, Coach. However, in that situation, with Adams up, I want CT back. Now the hell that Shep is catching is ridiculous. Any other guy on our team doesn't even make a play on those.
The whole point of a dropstep on fly balls is to begin moving backwards because moving back to catch balls is very difficult. <div>
</div><div>Normally I wouldn't mind the shallow play but we've been burned so many times against UF that I'm starting to think it's a trend not a coincidence.</div>
</div><div>Normally I wouldn't mind the shallow play but we've been burned so many times against UF that I'm starting to think it's a trend not a coincidence.</div>
but I still think the positioning of CT cost us twice in that inning, with Zunino's hit and the triple. It's a risk you take with guys that have speed like CT and Shep, but it burned us on those two occasions. It's certainly valid to question the call with two outs and a runner on third. Shep also got burned on two plays that if he's a step deeper, he makes them. It's a conscious decision by the coaching staff and a risk we're taking, but the guys haven't been able to close out the plays ... so it makes you wonder why we're taking unnecessary risks?
First of all, if you know anybody who's ever played outfield please call them and tell them what you just said. I'd be willing to bet they have a different opinion on the matter. Much easier to go back than it is to come in? I'm gonna make a quick assessment as to your never playing outfield. It is MUCH easier to play back and read the ball off the bat and come in on bloops than it is to read a pill off the bat and have to run back making a catch with your back somewhat turned to the ball and home plate.Coach34 said:
The count did not determine where Bradford was playing depth wise and if anything we should have been playing a few steps back, with two outs. Reason one being a hit is going to score the run from third, no matter where it's hit. Reason two you play a little deeper, you prevent extra base hits. Reason for this with two outs is trying to keep a runner out of scoring position by being able to cut off more balls in the gaps.
How many 2 strike Bombs and hard hit balls have you seen hitters hit? Reason being, they know they have to swing. Yet another reason to play a little deeper, in that situation especially.
Unless every single coach I've ever had was wrong it is far easier to go forward than back. Largely because the spin and a trajectory of a ball are easier to judge when you're moving towards it rather than with it, in the same direction that the ball is moving. This is the same reason why outfielders should call-off infielders on pop-ups--its much easier to catch a ball in front of you. <div>
</div><div>I searched it on google and all relevant articles agree with me. "End of argument"</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=harder+to+go+back+or+forward+on+fly+balls</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>I searched it on google and all relevant articles agree with me. "End of argument"</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=harder+to+go+back+or+forward+on+fly+balls</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
but I've played outfield my entire life and still play adult ball in Memphis. The rule is to always stay deeper than needed. It is MUCH easier to move forward on a ball where you are facing it and can track it easily than it is to run backward looking over your shoulder. When in doubt back up with your feet positioned to spring forward. There are reasons/situations to play shallow but no one plays center field shallow just because it's easier to run backward and catch a ball. A blooper in front of you gives up a base but a liner over your head gives up two or three.
Playing shallow to prevent a runner from 3rd is a coaching choice but it allows the possibility of someone to get a triple off an "easy out" fly if they get some lift. Cohen was gambling trying to prevent that run.
Playing shallow to prevent a runner from 3rd is a coaching choice but it allows the possibility of someone to get a triple off an "easy out" fly if they get some lift. Cohen was gambling trying to prevent that run.
"First of all, if you know anybody who's ever played outfield please call them and tell them what you just said. I'd be willing to bet they have a different opinion on the matter. Much easier to go back than it is to come in? I'm gonna make a quick assessment as to your never playing outfield. It is MUCH easier to play back and read the ball off the bat and come in on bloops than it is to read a pill off the bat and have to run back making a catch with your back somewhat turned to the ball and home plate. "
Jim Edmonds, Willie Mays, Andruw Jones and every other good CF'er disagrees
"The count did not determine where Bradford was playing depth wise and if anything we should have been playing a few steps back, with two outs. Reason one being a hit is going to score the run from third, no matter where it's hit. Reason two you play a little deeper, you prevent extra base hits. Reason for this with two outs is trying to keep a runner out of scoring position by being able to cut off more balls in the gaps"
A. Yes, the count DOES determine depth for OF'ers, as does runner position, speed, and number of outs
B. Yes, you do play deeper to prevent extra base hits, but not in that situation of a tie game. You do that with a lead.
"How many 2 strike Bombs and hard hit balls have you seen hitters hit? Reason being, they know they have to swing. Yet another reason to play a little deeper, in that situation especially"
nowhere close as many as I have from 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 3-1 counts...you may be a good guy, but you are a terrible poster about baseball
Jim Edmonds, Willie Mays, Andruw Jones and every other good CF'er disagrees
"The count did not determine where Bradford was playing depth wise and if anything we should have been playing a few steps back, with two outs. Reason one being a hit is going to score the run from third, no matter where it's hit. Reason two you play a little deeper, you prevent extra base hits. Reason for this with two outs is trying to keep a runner out of scoring position by being able to cut off more balls in the gaps"
A. Yes, the count DOES determine depth for OF'ers, as does runner position, speed, and number of outs
B. Yes, you do play deeper to prevent extra base hits, but not in that situation of a tie game. You do that with a lead.
"How many 2 strike Bombs and hard hit balls have you seen hitters hit? Reason being, they know they have to swing. Yet another reason to play a little deeper, in that situation especially"
nowhere close as many as I have from 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 3-1 counts...you may be a good guy, but you are a terrible poster about baseball
obviously you want to be coming forward to catch a high fly as opposed to backing up. We are talking about line drives.
It is easier to run down a line drive going sideways or running back, than it is to judge the topspin of a sinking line drive in front. I dont see how that can be argued.
It is easier to run down a line drive going sideways or running back, than it is to judge the topspin of a sinking line drive in front. I dont see how that can be argued.
"it's much easier going back then it is coming forward"
Good to know that I will never take anything you say about baseball seriously again. Anybody who has ever played the outfield, or coached beyond Coach Pitch baseball, knows that your 1st step is always back, and that is for a reason.
Good to know that I will never take anything you say about baseball seriously again. Anybody who has ever played the outfield, or coached beyond Coach Pitch baseball, knows that your 1st step is always back, and that is for a reason.
but as fans, we get to do that AFTER the fact. I've coached for 12 years and have a state championship ring (great players, not the coaching). Bottom line is, you go with your gut and the info you have available....sometimes you look like a genius and sometimes you look like an moron. This staff, who isn't perfect, has our bunch 1 win from Omaha. Let that sink in.
I really wonder how many of you would enjoy someone micro-analyzing EVERY decision you make at work all day, all year. I'm sure you'd make a few decisions that you wish you could have back.
I really wonder how many of you would enjoy someone micro-analyzing EVERY decision you make at work all day, all year. I'm sure you'd make a few decisions that you wish you could have back.
Zunino hit a long fly ball that hit the wall and C. T. almost ran it down. However, he was some 15 paces in on the second one. You can see in the replay that when he dove, he landed close to the normal CF position. He was not only shallow, he was "too" shallow. But that is where Mingione placed him, so we live with it and Parks and Nick Vick bailed us out of a coaching snafu. He WAS shallow as the situation dictates. But hewasTOO shallow.
Most of the time our OF is lined up in a straight line from the left field foul pole to the right field foul pole. Too many pisrods by Florida yesterday and today for that strategy so that is why Shepherd was usually standing just in front of track on Zunino, Tucker and Adams. Either C T missed a placement or Mingione under-estimated dude's ability to go down and drive the low pitch like that.
Most of the time our OF is lined up in a straight line from the left field foul pole to the right field foul pole. Too many pisrods by Florida yesterday and today for that strategy so that is why Shepherd was usually standing just in front of track on Zunino, Tucker and Adams. Either C T missed a placement or Mingione under-estimated dude's ability to go down and drive the low pitch like that.
majors42 said:
you play shallow to attempt to take away bloop and line drive singles
Nobody has disputed that a single through the infield scores the runner. Learn to read before calling someone stupid.
Pain let me off on the bet because we could have easily put 2 more TD's on Michigan...I said we'd average 30- we averaged 29...sue me
that having played college ball and knowing when and where outfielders should be positioned I'm a ****** poster. There were two outs at the time. A hit anywhere is going to score the guy from third. Would you rather A) give up a single, thus having a force at second and first or B) give up a triple and allow another runner to be 90 ft away from scoring? What is so ****** about that strategy?
<span style="font-weight: bold;">"Jim Edmonds, Willie Mays, Andruw Jones and every other good CF'er disagrees</span>"
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove here. Yes, they are all great center fielders and could go where most cant in center field. But do they all think its easier to make an over the shoulder catch diving away from home plate on the track, OOOORRRR, being able to run straight forward, the natural running position and catch one? No brainer on that question.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">A. Yes, the count DOES determine depth for OF'ers, as does runner position, speed, and number of outs</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Yes, you do play deeper to prevent extra base hits, but not in that situation of a tie game. You do that with a lead. </span>
A. Wrong once again. The count determines how the pitcher is going to pitch to the hitter in that situation. And that is based on scouting report and game situation. Thus, the 2nd Baseman and Shortstop will relay the called pitch to outfielders with some type of signal (glove open closed, 1 finger, 2 fingers). This will position the outfielder either left or right depending on inside pitch, outside pitch, hard or soft. Never does a count determine how deep or shallow a player plays. That is utterly ridiculous. How many times have you seen them running and backing up in between pitches? I could answer that for you, but I'll wait to see what you conjure up. Centerfield has an advantage over other outfielders because he can read whether a pitch is inside or out and be taking a step in either direction on the pitch. Referring to the greats you mentioned above, this is something they do and did extremely well, thus allowing them to get to balls thats most can't.
B. You play deeper to prevent extra base hits so you can possibly limit the number of runs your opponent will score. With a man on second you man play more shallow. With a man at third, no. He's going to score on any hit, and giving up a single vs a extra base hit isn't a difficult decision to make. Coming back to the easier to come in than go back. Given he almost made a hell of a play on it, he should have been deeper.
"How many 2 strike Bombs and hard hit balls have you seen
hitters hit? Reason being, they know they have to swing. Yet another
reason to play a little deeper, in that situation especially"
"n<span style="font-weight: bold;">owhere close as many as I have from 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 3-1 counts...</span><font color="#ff0000">you may be a good guy, but you are a terrible poster about baseball</font>"
Where in my statement did I say that 2 strikes are the only time people hit homeruns? My point being, when you have two strikes you know you have to swing and a lot of the times they shorten up and put it in play, taking a more relaxed swing. If you had ever played, you'd know that a relaxed swing is the best swing a hitter can have, thus a lot of hard hit balls with two strikes. (I.E. Pill Triples and Bombe) They aren't trying to overswing and put good bat on it.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">"Jim Edmonds, Willie Mays, Andruw Jones and every other good CF'er disagrees</span>"
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove here. Yes, they are all great center fielders and could go where most cant in center field. But do they all think its easier to make an over the shoulder catch diving away from home plate on the track, OOOORRRR, being able to run straight forward, the natural running position and catch one? No brainer on that question.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">A. Yes, the count DOES determine depth for OF'ers, as does runner position, speed, and number of outs</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">B. Yes, you do play deeper to prevent extra base hits, but not in that situation of a tie game. You do that with a lead. </span>
A. Wrong once again. The count determines how the pitcher is going to pitch to the hitter in that situation. And that is based on scouting report and game situation. Thus, the 2nd Baseman and Shortstop will relay the called pitch to outfielders with some type of signal (glove open closed, 1 finger, 2 fingers). This will position the outfielder either left or right depending on inside pitch, outside pitch, hard or soft. Never does a count determine how deep or shallow a player plays. That is utterly ridiculous. How many times have you seen them running and backing up in between pitches? I could answer that for you, but I'll wait to see what you conjure up. Centerfield has an advantage over other outfielders because he can read whether a pitch is inside or out and be taking a step in either direction on the pitch. Referring to the greats you mentioned above, this is something they do and did extremely well, thus allowing them to get to balls thats most can't.
B. You play deeper to prevent extra base hits so you can possibly limit the number of runs your opponent will score. With a man on second you man play more shallow. With a man at third, no. He's going to score on any hit, and giving up a single vs a extra base hit isn't a difficult decision to make. Coming back to the easier to come in than go back. Given he almost made a hell of a play on it, he should have been deeper.
"How many 2 strike Bombs and hard hit balls have you seen
hitters hit? Reason being, they know they have to swing. Yet another
reason to play a little deeper, in that situation especially"
"n<span style="font-weight: bold;">owhere close as many as I have from 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 3-1 counts...</span><font color="#ff0000">you may be a good guy, but you are a terrible poster about baseball</font>"
Where in my statement did I say that 2 strikes are the only time people hit homeruns? My point being, when you have two strikes you know you have to swing and a lot of the times they shorten up and put it in play, taking a more relaxed swing. If you had ever played, you'd know that a relaxed swing is the best swing a hitter can have, thus a lot of hard hit balls with two strikes. (I.E. Pill Triples and Bombe) They aren't trying to overswing and put good bat on it.
I played college baseball also- it doesnt seem to help your posting.
It was two outs- we were trying to keep the run from scoring. We were trying to take away the single- Cant be explained any simpler than that.
"A. The count determines how the pitcher is going to pitch to the hitter in that situation. And that is based on scouting report and game situation. Thus, the 2nd Baseman and Shortstop will relay the called pitch to outfielders with some type of signal (glove open closed, 1 finger, 2 fingers). This will position the outfielder either left or right depending on inside pitch, outside pitch, hard or soft"-
nice google, you got that right
"Never does a count determine how deep or shallow a player plays. That is utterly ridiculous. How many times have you seen them running and backing up in between pitches?"
Damn- you were doing so well. When pitchers have batters down 2 strikes and intend to get them out with breaking balls or changes low and away, they will bring the CF and oppo OF'er in a couple steps to try to protect against the bloop. That is extremely common. Nobody said anything about having OF'ers "running in"
"B. You play deeper to prevent extra base hits so you can possibly limit the number of runs your opponent will score"
Not in a tie game dumbass- you are trying to prevent the other team from taking the lead. Quit being stupid. You dont dont play a "no-doubles" defense in a tie game with a man on 3rd
You're a ****** baseball poster- it's ok. We still accept you as a fan. Just read more
It was two outs- we were trying to keep the run from scoring. We were trying to take away the single- Cant be explained any simpler than that.
"A. The count determines how the pitcher is going to pitch to the hitter in that situation. And that is based on scouting report and game situation. Thus, the 2nd Baseman and Shortstop will relay the called pitch to outfielders with some type of signal (glove open closed, 1 finger, 2 fingers). This will position the outfielder either left or right depending on inside pitch, outside pitch, hard or soft"-
nice google, you got that right
"Never does a count determine how deep or shallow a player plays. That is utterly ridiculous. How many times have you seen them running and backing up in between pitches?"
Damn- you were doing so well. When pitchers have batters down 2 strikes and intend to get them out with breaking balls or changes low and away, they will bring the CF and oppo OF'er in a couple steps to try to protect against the bloop. That is extremely common. Nobody said anything about having OF'ers "running in"
"B. You play deeper to prevent extra base hits so you can possibly limit the number of runs your opponent will score"
Not in a tie game dumbass- you are trying to prevent the other team from taking the lead. Quit being stupid. You dont dont play a "no-doubles" defense in a tie game with a man on 3rd
You're a ****** baseball poster- it's ok. We still accept you as a fan. Just read more