Hit and run

[Craig S.]

Can anyone tell me why some managers still insist on using this play on a regular basis? I thought that its usefulness had been disproven back in the '20s.

The percentages just aren't there. Sure, it looks great when it works, but it's more likely that the runner will either be thrown out, or the batter will be forced to swing at a pitch he normally would have taken.

Like the first-inning sac bunt at Coors Field, I guess I don't see the logic behind it.

[poorme]

I disagree with you a little. There are still certain spots I think it can be useful.

I like the run and hit. If you've got a good base stealer on base let him go and let the hitter hit if it's a good pitch. problem is some guys can't focus on hitting if there's a runner going. seems like some kind of mental block.

what if you have a catcher like Piazza? seems like you could hit and run all day.

[SmedIndy]

I agree that a run and hit is the play to use. Sometimes you need to go against the odds to get a better reward, or keep the defense guessing.

That's why every once in a while I love the suicide squeeze (especially with 2 out, as Zimmer used to do with the Cubs), or perhaps the bunt and run (which works best in high school, really, but you try to put pressure on the D to make an error).

[Max Power]

If used correctly, I think the play still has some merit.

Gotta be a contact hitter at the plate and a count where the pitcher is forced to throw a strike. Plus, you only want to do it v. a pitcher that throws strikes.

If the batter is a contact, groundball, punch and judy type, and slow, it's a good play to stay out of a DP - - - and, the aim of the game is to avoid giving up your 27 outs..............

[Craig S.]

I guess I just don't think the odds favor the team hitting. In the best-case scenario, the baserunner advances one base further than he would have had he stayed on his base. Otherwise, there's a chance he could be thrown out stealing, doubled off on any kind of line drive or even some popups, or the batter could be forced to swing at a bad pitch to protect the runner.

I can see it on a few 3-1 counts with fast baserunners, but I just don't think it has much merit in the game anymore. And I think it's difficult for fans to let go of it, since it's been seen as a fundamental. As for managers, I think they often put the play on simply because they feel they should, not because of any well-planned strategy.

Anyone know of a study that's been done on this topic recently?

[VNV Nation]

Craig, I can't see how it was proven in the 1920s that the hit-and-run didn't work. Bill James asserted that Casey Stengel used the hit-and-run to great effect. In an era of station-to-station ball, it gave him a great advantage.

With a 1-0 or 2-1 count, contact hitter and less than two outs, I would think the benefits/potential gain far outweigh the potential losses. For one, it opens up half the infield, essentially eliminating one fielder. If you have a fast runner, he can steal the base even if the batter misses. If you have a slow runner and a contact hitter, the runner can get to third on a ball he would never normally attempt to stretch on. Even if it doesn't work, meaning the batter doesn't get the ball through the infield, it keeps you out of a double play and is essentially a sacrifice.

The chances of hitting into a double play by holding the runner far outweigh the chances of lining into two. Most hitters probably line out to an infielder about 20-30 times a year, max, but they ground out probably 200 times.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Craig, I can't see how it was proven in the 1920s that the hit-and-run didn't work. Bill James asserted that Casey Stengel used the hit-and-run to great effect. In an era of station-to-station ball, it gave him a great advantage.

With a 1-0 or 2-1 count, contact hitter and less than two outs, I would think the benefits/potential gain far outweigh the potential losses. For one, it opens up half the infield, essentially eliminating one fielder. If you have a fast runner, he can steal the base even if the batter misses. If you have a slow runner and a contact hitter, the runner can get to third on a ball he would never normally attempt to stretch on. Even if it doesn't work, meaning the batter doesn't get the ball through the infield, it keeps you out of a double play and is essentially a sacrifice.

The chances of hitting into a double play by holding the runner far outweigh the chances of lining into two. Most hitters probably line out to an infielder about 20-30 times a year, max, but they ground out probably 200 times.

I wouldn't do it on the 1-0 or 2-1 counts unless my runner was fast enough to steal on his own.

The comment about the '20s that I made wasn't based on any kind of evidence or study. I just took that from John McGraw's comments that once home runs became part of the game, the hit and run wasn't worth trying anymore.

You could certainly be right, as it seems like we just have different philosophies here. Now, if someone could just keep track of this stuff for a year or so, that would be great. I hate not having anything to refer to.

[VNV Nation]

Well, in McGraw's day, the H-R was considered a big play, an explosive offensive weapon.
With the advent of the home run, it wasn't worth building a lineup around the hit-and-run anymore. Certainly, I don't think anyone would suggest that teams should use the H-R as much as they did in the 1890s-1910s. But it survives as its value is as much "defensive" (stay out of DP) as anything.

[poorme]

If you have a weak hitter up who doesn't strike out much, the hit and run is like a sacrifice, but there's a 20% chance you'll wind up first and third and no out rather than man on second and one out. Sometimes that's worth the risk of a swing and miss. I would also do this at the bottom of the lineup - with a string of non power guys coming up and perhaps the pitcher. if you've got a guy on third, the pitcher might get him home. if he's on second, not much chance.

I like to play aggressively. Force the other team to make the plays - if they have a shaky defense especially.

[RichG]

Originally posted by poorme
If you have a weak hitter up who doesn't strike out much, the hit and run is like a sacrifice, but there's a 20% chance you'll wind up first and third and no out rather than man on second and one out. Sometimes that's worth the risk of a swing and miss.

How was the 20% arrived at? Does it also take into account that no change might occur?

[poorme]

Originally posted by RichG
How was the 20% arrived at? Does it also take into account that no change might occur?

It was a WAG - wild #$% guess. I was just saying there's about a 20% chance the guy will get a hit, leading to a first and third situation.

I don't follow your second sentence.

[KCBOOMER]

The play has merit occasionally but there are a lot of variables you don't control that make it risky. The pitcher has to throw something the batter can hit in the desired direction, the right infielder has to move, the batter must make contact, the batter mustn't hit a grounder up the middle, etc.

[poorme]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
The play has merit occasionally but there are a lot of variables you don't control that make it risky. The pitcher has to throw something the batter can hit in the desired direction, the right infielder has to move, the batter must make contact, the batter mustn't hit a grounder up the middle, etc.

you're talking about the perfect result. all the batter has to do is make contact for it to be worthwhile. How often have you seen a batter drill a grounder right to the second base bag? Not very likely. Any other grounder and you have a man on second instead of a force or double play.