Wow! I have to be honest, in that I think I am too old to take the roller-coaster rides you guys are afflicted with in younger age groups! Blowouts are almost a disappointment at older age levels and international tournaments. IMHO
International Tie-breaker, Nuances In Coaching
- Thread starter Steve Huff
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Wow! I have to be honest, in that I think I am too old to take the roller-coaster rides you guys are afflicted with in younger age groups! Blowouts are almost a disappointment at older age levels and international tournaments. IMHO
I’m a little surprised so many would give an IBB.
You can get a force a 3rd that way, but, if that runner at 2nd has any speed, getting that force isn’t a given. Far from it IMO.
Both your corners have to crash, SS covers 3rd and 2nd covers 1st. That leaves 2nd base wide open. The offensive player at 2nd can get a great jump and doesn’t have any concern about getting back. They can go all out on the release of the pitch and never hesitate at all on a bunt (like a straight steal), even if the bunt doesn’t get down (they have time to get back).
On offense, to me, I’d be less concerned with my runner being out on a force at 3rd than I would be that my batter pops up the bunt and we get doubled up at 2nd.
If you bring your center fielder in that close to cover 2, any ball hit at all to center scores 2 runs and gets the batter at least a double. That leaves you with no outs, you’ve given up 2 runs and you’re right back to where you started, a runner and 2nd and nobody out.
You can get a force a 3rd that way, but, if that runner at 2nd has any speed, getting that force isn’t a given. Far from it IMO.
Both your corners have to crash, SS covers 3rd and 2nd covers 1st. That leaves 2nd base wide open. The offensive player at 2nd can get a great jump and doesn’t have any concern about getting back. They can go all out on the release of the pitch and never hesitate at all on a bunt (like a straight steal), even if the bunt doesn’t get down (they have time to get back).
On offense, to me, I’d be less concerned with my runner being out on a force at 3rd than I would be that my batter pops up the bunt and we get doubled up at 2nd.
If you bring your center fielder in that close to cover 2, any ball hit at all to center scores 2 runs and gets the batter at least a double. That leaves you with no outs, you’ve given up 2 runs and you’re right back to where you started, a runner and 2nd and nobody out.
I could be wrong but my understand was the IBB is used to set up the force when the runner on 2nd is the winning run. Hence no big inning setup. If she scores, game over.
You can also reverse the roles of your 2B and 1B and have them cover the bags, pitcher covers the 1B line. Then you have a backup for the throw to the 1st baseman at the bag. I might do this if I was the Visiting coach, but never the Home coach. As the Visiting coach I am going to do the ITBB. Your last comment only applies to the Visiting team.
More Importantly!
One thing to note is how the odds work against you if you are the visiting team and the home team has the winning run on 2nd or 3rd. On 2nd, the outfield has to be able to throw out the runner trying to score on a base-hit. That means playing closer to the plate and varies depending on the fielders arm strength and accuracy. A fly ball has the same result, keeping the runner in this case from advancing hopefully, perhaps even to RF. But if over the outfield's head, then game over. You have a bad choice to make, but usually the coach plays the outfield up, and calls for pitches down. Typically a walk sets up the force-out at 3rd base.
If there is a runner on 3rd base, then you can only increase some bad odds. You set up a force at the plate, walking runners as needed to create it. I have had another pitcher pitch the intentional walks when those rules apply. Obviously there is no problem if the batter can just be given the Intentional Base on Balls (IBB). Now that the runner is on 3rd, every throw is going home. The outfield is pulled up for a throw on a fly ball. Anything that moves them back will likely mean the run scores. The middle infield is moved up in the baseline for a quick throw to the plate. The catcher may be able to contact the plate and make a throw to 1st base for a double play, but that is wishful thinking, though you should practice it. This alignment probably improves your chances of getting out of the predicament by about 15% or so. It isn't ideal, and many parents will think you have lost your mind. They play checkers, you play chess!
Last edited:
This is exactly right. As a Visiting coach, I always walk the 1st batter.
This one is winding down a little, so I want to mention two weapons that I haven't noticed. If anyone mentioned it, please let me know.
Don't forget that a good, practiced pitcher can throw a pitch-out in these situations to take measure of the Offenses intentions. You can defense a steal, see their intentions, keep them a little closer, or throw behind a runner.
It is also a good time for a skilled pitcher to focus on rise-balls IN the strike zone if she has that kind of control, to induce pop-ups!
Don't forget that a good, practiced pitcher can throw a pitch-out in these situations to take measure of the Offenses intentions. You can defense a steal, see their intentions, keep them a little closer, or throw behind a runner.
It is also a good time for a skilled pitcher to focus on rise-balls IN the strike zone if she has that kind of control, to induce pop-ups!
Pitch out is an excellent call in this situation. When my team is hitting, I like to pull back from the bunt on the first pitch, just to see what the defense is going to do. Do both 1st and 3rd crash the bunt, with SS going toward 3rd and 2nd going to 1st? Or is 1st staying back to cover 1st and 2nd moving up beside the pitcher, or going to cover 2nd? The answer will tell the hitter (and coaches) where the "hole" in the infield is, and where the best place is to put the bunt, as well as the best type of bunt to use.
On a pitch out the entire infield has to know it is comming, and adjust their coverage to take advantage. This would not reveal what the defense will be doing if you do bunt. Now, are they going to intentionaly walk the batter? Or pitch to her? Can't try to steal if you are not sure. If the batter pulls the bat back again and this time it's a strike, now what? She has to get the bunt down on the next pitch, so if you send the runner, you could wind up in a double play. This would take away the straight steal as an option, unless of coarse, you really want to gamble.
This is what I love about this game! Strategy! Whose got the guts to make the wrong call?
On a pitch out the entire infield has to know it is comming, and adjust their coverage to take advantage. This would not reveal what the defense will be doing if you do bunt. Now, are they going to intentionaly walk the batter? Or pitch to her? Can't try to steal if you are not sure. If the batter pulls the bat back again and this time it's a strike, now what? She has to get the bunt down on the next pitch, so if you send the runner, you could wind up in a double play. This would take away the straight steal as an option, unless of coarse, you really want to gamble.
This is what I love about this game! Strategy! Whose got the guts to make the wrong call?
Good post FPMark!
Japan-2 USA-1
I reviewed the last 3 innings of the USA / Japan game at the ISF Women's World Championships. First let me mention that of the videos I have seen so far, I saw no major mistakes in strategy by coaches, and only a few by players in comparison to the 2011 World Cup last year and also 2011 EU Women's Championships.
I think China screwed up in their game against Australia when they allowed the winning run to reach base in their tie-breaker in a fielder's choice situation. China scored, then allowed the winning run to reach first on a fielders choice that was not a good play. Second video down at the 15:50 mark. Score was 4-3 China.
China vs Australia
Ok, the game.
First let me say that this game played out some of my theories I presented in my International Tie-breaker, nuances in coaching thread.
The visiting team achieves their only advantage in the game when they reach tie-breaker. And in this case, Japan won. Japan was able to play small ball which becomes even more relevant in tie-breaker, so now they had two advantages.
When the US was facing Japan in the top of the innings, they did not put a 2nd runner on 1st base, this might have put an insurmountable run on the board and pressure the US might not want to face should both runs score. Would a potential force at 3rd base be worth putting 2 runners in scoring position with 1 out?
So all of these things played out in the game as they predictably should have. The lack of intentional walks was predictable except by Japan. But if you are the world's best defensive team, perhaps you can play your cards a little different.
The observation involving Japan is the bottom of the 9th, and Moultrie is at bat with the runner on 2nd, no outs. They chose to pitch to the fastest runner on the team, and one of the best bunters. However, the US has only one baserunner, and that runner can only tie the game, not win it. If they walked Moultrie to create the force at third, they would be putting the winning run on base. And that runner would be Moultrie flying around the bases.
Ok, another thing we talked about earlier in this thread. As much as Japan bunts, it might have been a good time for a pitchout when Traina came in to pitch with the runner at 3rd and 1 out. I think that might have been a coaching option over-looked if not short-sighted. The results would have been bases empty and 2 outs. Instead, it was the winning run scored on the "suicide squeeze". This is why watching these games over and over is a good thing. This situation can get burned into your brain after exposure and you might not make the same mistake or over-sight! This we dealt with earlier in this post. Second video at the 51:00 mark.
Gold Medal Game: USA vs Japan
(Some might ask why a squeeze of either variety is made most often with 1 out, in which case this bunt was somewhat predictable. First let me say that with no outs, there is a chance for a sac fly, base hit, passed ball, error, or even an FC up the middle, etc. But you don't make your first out at home plate, so you have to be sure. So unless sure, the runner will hold. With one out, now you might take a few more chances. Secondly with 1 out if you do make the out at home, you have almost run out of the inning, but you would be even least likely to score with two outs and a runner at 3rd, when only a hit, passed ball, or error can score the runner and offensive options are reduced. And you do have one more out! So 1 out is the typical scenario though not written in stone.)
I fail to understand the bunt job by Valerie Arieto for the US in the 10th and final inning. If she was a lousy bunter, wasn't there someone on the bench? Second video at the 1:00 mark.
Gold Medal Game: USA vs Japan
Other than this, I saw no real issues in this game. I feel that if you review these situations, and relive them, you can avoid similar coaching mistakes in the future.
I reviewed the last 3 innings of the USA / Japan game at the ISF Women's World Championships. First let me mention that of the videos I have seen so far, I saw no major mistakes in strategy by coaches, and only a few by players in comparison to the 2011 World Cup last year and also 2011 EU Women's Championships.
I think China screwed up in their game against Australia when they allowed the winning run to reach base in their tie-breaker in a fielder's choice situation. China scored, then allowed the winning run to reach first on a fielders choice that was not a good play. Second video down at the 15:50 mark. Score was 4-3 China.
China vs Australia
Ok, the game.
First let me say that this game played out some of my theories I presented in my International Tie-breaker, nuances in coaching thread.
The visiting team achieves their only advantage in the game when they reach tie-breaker. And in this case, Japan won. Japan was able to play small ball which becomes even more relevant in tie-breaker, so now they had two advantages.
When the US was facing Japan in the top of the innings, they did not put a 2nd runner on 1st base, this might have put an insurmountable run on the board and pressure the US might not want to face should both runs score. Would a potential force at 3rd base be worth putting 2 runners in scoring position with 1 out?
So all of these things played out in the game as they predictably should have. The lack of intentional walks was predictable except by Japan. But if you are the world's best defensive team, perhaps you can play your cards a little different.
The observation involving Japan is the bottom of the 9th, and Moultrie is at bat with the runner on 2nd, no outs. They chose to pitch to the fastest runner on the team, and one of the best bunters. However, the US has only one baserunner, and that runner can only tie the game, not win it. If they walked Moultrie to create the force at third, they would be putting the winning run on base. And that runner would be Moultrie flying around the bases.
Ok, another thing we talked about earlier in this thread. As much as Japan bunts, it might have been a good time for a pitchout when Traina came in to pitch with the runner at 3rd and 1 out. I think that might have been a coaching option over-looked if not short-sighted. The results would have been bases empty and 2 outs. Instead, it was the winning run scored on the "suicide squeeze". This is why watching these games over and over is a good thing. This situation can get burned into your brain after exposure and you might not make the same mistake or over-sight! This we dealt with earlier in this post. Second video at the 51:00 mark.
Gold Medal Game: USA vs Japan
(Some might ask why a squeeze of either variety is made most often with 1 out, in which case this bunt was somewhat predictable. First let me say that with no outs, there is a chance for a sac fly, base hit, passed ball, error, or even an FC up the middle, etc. But you don't make your first out at home plate, so you have to be sure. So unless sure, the runner will hold. With one out, now you might take a few more chances. Secondly with 1 out if you do make the out at home, you have almost run out of the inning, but you would be even least likely to score with two outs and a runner at 3rd, when only a hit, passed ball, or error can score the runner and offensive options are reduced. And you do have one more out! So 1 out is the typical scenario though not written in stone.)
I fail to understand the bunt job by Valerie Arieto for the US in the 10th and final inning. If she was a lousy bunter, wasn't there someone on the bench? Second video at the 1:00 mark.
Gold Medal Game: USA vs Japan
Other than this, I saw no real issues in this game. I feel that if you review these situations, and relive them, you can avoid similar coaching mistakes in the future.
Last edited:
Similar threads
