If so, I get it. Put the pressure to make the perfect throw with a fast runner. But down 1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs in the 9th..... If thats the coach's plan, I dont get it.
I would imagine that it is analytics-based, and would have been handled differently if there was no runner on 2nd base. Somebody did the math and determined that the reward of assuring 2 runs (and a win) on a single is worth the risk of a ball directly hit to 3B or 1B.
The thinking is that you can win the game with a single, but only if the runner from 2nd doesn’t hesitate. You can’t do that if either runner stops and waits to see if the ball gets through….so you instruct both runners to go on contact for anything on the ground that’s past the pitcher.
Scenarios look like this:
Ground ball through the infield is likely game-winning, as long as runner on 2nd isn’t a sloth. Worst case is a tie game.
Ground ball to 3B playing deep, or having to move to his left is a tie game with a runner on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd and 1 out…depending on various factors.
Ground ball to SS or 2B is a tie game, possibly with runner on 3rd even if they get the out at first. An extended run-down can get the batter to 2nd base if either tries to get the out at 3rd.
Ground ball to 1B deep or having to move to his glove side is a tie game with runner on 3rd and one out.
Ball hit sharply and directly to the 3B or 1B is the only way it backfires, and that’s what happened. Sometimes the analytics bite you. But they still had 1st and 3rd with only 1 out and their best hitter at the plate. And then they had 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs after that. When you know you need nothing beyond 2 runs, the approach changes a lot in the 9th.
