fake bunt vs. swing-through, to protect the runner

When I coached I preferred the fake bunt. 

IMO strikes are too valuable from the hitter's perspective to just give one to the pitcher.  Fake bunt allows some discretion on the batter and still holds the catcher back a bit.

Not a fan of either but for sure would not give automatic strike on first pitch.  Pitchers are taught most important pitch is "strike one".... I know you aren't worried about giving up a strike, but I don't think you get any appreciable difference between that and fake bunt, other than assuring you are down in the count.

Given the options, I prefer the swing through.  I think the swing through is more effective in holding the catcher back.

Call me crazy for asking this question, but if you have a guy that can steal, why do you have to protect him?

By holding the catcher for a split second more, some of your marginal runners can now advance to scoring position.

I was a catcher in HS and college and mainly coach catchers - at no point does a swing or a bunt hold a catcher back any longer than if the batter just stands there.  A catcher is taught to receive the pitch and then come up throwing.  There is just too much going on for a catcher to think / realize they need to be a little slower because of a swing or bunt.

IMO the time you gain from "delaying" the catcher is so insignificant that it's not worth taking the strike to put your hitter in the hole - even if he's your best hitter.  If you[re trying to advance a runner who is not a typical basestealer then either bunt him over or hit / run or run / hit. 

My mentor, Tom Pile, won right at 800 HS games.  He did both depending upon his gut feeling.  He put some pretty good teams out there and believed in this.  I had a team steal 237 bases in a season.  I did the same.  We know what we know.  Did that fake bunt or swing and miss really help?  Who knows.  What I did know at the time of each instance is that I wanted that runner on 2nd and so, I'd do almost anything to get that done.  Maybe they would have been safe without me doing that.  Now, naturally, I had some runners who didn't need protection and were flat out fast.  Those don't always come along.  I would also add that I've had some outstanding hitters so, having them hit with a strike or two strikes never bothered me. 

CoachB, I agree that for me it does factor in who I have at the plate.  Is the batter the type that can give up a strike, or is he the kind that needs every strike he can get.

coach2709, I am pretty much exactly what you described in your first sentence.  I think for the HS catchers, the hardest part for them to get used to is
"throwing through" a batter that has taken a swing.  Unless they practice getting comfortable being very close to, or even making contact with, a batter, i see all too many times they alter their mechanics on the throw to second.  So, I agree that it doesn't necessarily hold them back in "time", but I think it alters their throwing when it comes to a swing or a no swing.

 A fake bunt deep in the box will definitely buy a little time. A slow swing through will mess up a catchers timing. At the HS level most catchers want to jump and go, this will get him on his front foot similar to a change up and the result is often him burying a throw to 2nd. The best coaches in the country use this action, follow this up with a fake bunt/slash later in the game to keep them guessing.

Good question.

Please keep in mind, I typically "protect" R1 when we first-pitch steal,  and  I anticipate a first-pitch fastball, which reduces the odds for our R1.  "Keeping the catcher back" for a split-second (or reducing the accuracy of the throw) is an attempt to even the odds.

The problem here is the word "protect".  Let's change it.  Instead of trying to protect R1,  I'm trying to increase his odds.

"at no point does a swing or a bunt hold a catcher back any longer than if the batter just stands there."

My original question was: what's better, a swing or fake-bunt?

I hadn't considered the possibility that both are worthless.  Interesting.

That said, I'm with lefthookdad:   "[swinging through] doesn't necessarily hold them back in 'time', but I think it alters their throwing".

Don't like either. Too many times your down 0-1 then foul one off, or the ump calls a borderline strike and you're 0-2.

And like coach2709 mentions, chances are a good catcher will throw him out anyway and you'll really kill the inning fast

I risk the line out DP rather than put the batter in the hole.

JMO

Our approach to the steal is different than most.  Whenever we steal (including first pitch), our hitters have the green light to hit FB strikes.  This offers a degree of protection, and of course an added risk of getting doubled off but it has worked well more often than not.

They are not worthless, if that was the case it wouldn't be happening at the highest levels D1 D2 MLB . Some folks on here will give their own opinion and then rank it above the rest of the world. I myself like to see what the great minds in baseball do and then adjust to my own strengths and weaknesses. There is a place and time for everything. The great catchers Molina, and Posada  might not be as easily distracted, but if you can get a marginal runner into scoring position with a little help from a hitter then why not? remember it's a game of inches.

Is this aimed at me?  I'm thinking it might just be since I'm the only one who has really went against using either one.

Give me proof that it works or alters any mechanics.  It's not possible to prove it works just as it's not possible for me to prove that it doesn't work.  I never said anybody who uses this is wrong.  I just gave the opinion that it's not enough of a factor to really use it.  There's no way to measure it.  But if someone believes in them and want to use them - by all means go right ahead.

Coach2709:  comment may have included me as well, since I said I did not like either as well, however my opinion was not presented as gospel, just an opinion.  

Some players are meant to run and some are not.   Maybe doing either will help the 50/50 runner, and given the choice, I'd prefer being deep in the box , and dragging the bat back in a fake bunt, hopefully in the catcher's line of sight.  

I'd rather the batter fake bunt if needed but more to screw up the infielders than the catchers. I don't think it effects catchers all that much.  They're used to handling swings, bunts, etc. I like it to mess with inexperienced middle infielders.  If a righty is batting, the second baseman usually covers 2B on the steal.  If there is a bunt, he is supposed to get to first base.  When the batter squares and the runner breaks at the same time, sometimes the second baseman doesn't know where to go.  If the middle infielders haven't communicated or practiced this you can sometimes get nobody covering second base or both of them covering second.

Just a thought.

BaseballByTheYard.com 

Jerry Weinstein prefers check swing instead of swinging-through:

check swing and drag the bat back, IMO, runs a much greater risk of creating an interference call....a well caught catcher will go through with the throw and catch the batter on  the back swing if he "drags" the bat back too slowly

More from Jerry Weinstein:

A check swing & dragging the bat back towards the catcher without interfering will acccomplish much the same thing as the bunt "shade. When the bat starts forward, the catcher starts momentum into the pitch.   When the bats starts back, the catcher has to stop his momentum which negatively affect his throwing rhythm.This must be practiced so that you do not get called for interference.