Leads

1st Base..Heals on the bag step out with the left, extend with the right, left foot to right and extend the right, we call this our standard lead.  If we are going to steal it is another1/2 to a full extension.  If we are bunting or going Hit and run it is 1/2 extension less than are standard lead.

 

2nd Base..The players will always walk out as far as the 2nd baseman unless the 3rd base coach has them shorten due to the short stop.  If there is 0 outs the are in the base path.  If there is 1 out they take 1 step back towards the outfield from the bag before they extend.  If there are 2 outs they take 2 steps back toward the outfield from the bag before they extend.  They get depth to create a better angle to rounding the bag as we will be more agressive in scoring with 1 and 2 outs.

 

3rd Base...Chest to the infield and as far off as the 3rd baseman.  Once the pitcher committs to home plate with delivery they walk towards home plate.  If the pitcher is in the wind up they shorten their lead and walk when the pitcher starts their rocker step. 

Nicholas25,

 

If you incorporate any information you get, how do you plan on testing whether it works or not? If you don’t know, make sure those who give you such advise tell you how they measure the results of what they teach.

Stats, what are you going to measure the results against?  What you previously taught?  What the overall stats in MLB are?  Are you looking for a 0% caught stealing rate? A 0% picked off rate?  I think the above poster gave a pretty good idea of how he teaches his people to take their leads.  If you are looking for not getting caught stealing or not getting picked off, don't steal and don't lead off.  Everything does not come down to a stat.

bballman,

 

How about a before and after of stolen bases or the number of pickoff throws drawn for instance?

 

What on earth does what happen in MLB have to do with squat all?

 

Why are you so much against statistics? I think people who know how to use them, very often use them to improve what they’re teaching because they can be a measure of that.

 

I brought up MLB as a possible comparison to the posters stats. How many people keep stats on a teams baserunning stats, then completely change what they teach that group of kids and measure the difference between the old way they taught to run bases and the new way. You basically told the OP to ignore the advice given by the next poster - and anyone else - until they could prove that what they were teaching could be proven by stats. That's just crazy. Even if the poster did have stats to say how their baserunners fared, how do you know what level of competition was involved? 

I am not against statistics at all. I refer to them all the time. I just don't think EVERYTHING that is ever said, suggested or thought about has to be backed up or proven to be effective by stats. And like I said, even if stats are stated to back something up, there is no way to know any baseline for those stats. If I was a pitcher, and I ran around telling everyone how many strikeouts I had, how do you know the competition I was facing?  Was I facing the local rec teams, or was I facing nationally ranked competition. Stats don't mean much unless you can see them in context.

I don’t know what people do or why they do it. Why blame me if people don’t keep stats on base running things such as I mentioned? Its not like its brain surgery or takes a great deal of time. I’ve been doing it ever since I started scoring for teams using leadoffs using a paper and pencil so I know it can be done.

 

I told the original poster no such thing! You want to believe I did, but you better read it again before you go flappin’ that lip. All I was doing was advising him to learn from those who are so eager to give others advice so he could measure the effectiveness of what he was teaching. Wouldn’t it be kind of stupid to just start teaching kids something without having any way to measure whether it was working or not?

 

The guy was asking for help in becoming a better coach! And what does the level of play have to do with squat? You act as though once he has all this advice he’d suddenly go from whatever level he coaches now, to a ML job.

 

Yeah sure you refer to them all the time, the same way I refer to the ingredients on a can of cat food. There’s a big difference between “referring” to something and studying it in order to draw the best conclusions possible.

 

Why do you exaggerate so much in implying that I believe EVERYTHING has to be backed up or proven to be effective by stats? But now that you mention it, why would that be a bad thing at all? Do you believe coaches should just keep teaching things just because that’s the way they were taught something?

 

The reason there wouldn’t be any baseline is if none was available. If that’s the case, establish that baseline then you’d have it!

 

And what’s the competition got to do with it? I hear that garbage all the time, as though games against lesser competition are REAL games and shouldn’t count for anything. Horse rockets! Every game has to be played start to finish, and if you change what you teach and what you’re working toward by the completion, you’d be a pretty lousy coach. You  teach the players to perform using skills they’re taught, not to perform based on the skills their opponents have.

 

Hey Johnny, we’re playing a rec team today, so don’t worry about fielding a grounder the way I taught you. Or hey Billy, we’re facing a good pitcher today, so don’t swing the way I taught you last week when we played against a pitcher who stunk on ice.

 

If you don’t keep stats, there’s no context to consider, is there?

 

Whatever stats. You're always right, I'm always wrong. Not going to bicker with you anymore.

Why you insist on exaggerating and mischaracterizing what I say, then refusing to explain what it is about what makes not measuring something in order to better manage it some laudable philosophy, I don’t know.

 

Obviously Nicholas25 wants to learn how to coach leading off the best way possible, and that makes sense to me. All I’m suggesting is that he measure what’s going on so he can find out how effective what he’s teaching is, or maybe identify where he might be lacking something in his teaching method.

 

Heck, he may not even have a problem and all his players may be doing very well. If that’s so, what he’d be doing is making things worse. How does anyone know however? Its fairly easy with hitting because the player’s BA will go up, or at least he’ll hit the ball better. The same with pitching. If a pitcher’s walks cut down and his ERA drops, it’s a fairly safe bet he’s improving to some degree.

 

If the runners aren't drawing many throws and not many are stealing bases, then you teach something new and suddenly the number of throws increases you can be fairly sure they’re getting bigger leads. If the number of picks goes up, you can be fairly sure the leads have gotten too big.

 

All I’m saying is, its much better to track such things to be sure what’s perceived as happening, IS happening, and to what degree. The reason for that is, there’s only so much practice time available, and that time would be most efficiently used working on something that’s definitely a problem. Of course if there’s unlimited practice time with top talent available, the shotgun approach to what to teach will prolly work as well as any other.

 

Ya know, as little as 10 years ago it was understandable that many people didn’t keep track of very many things during a baseball game. I did and I know how much work it was. But today, with all the great scoring and stat generating APPs out there, I’m seeing more and more people finding out that there really is a better way to go about coaching, Not that the coaching gets any better, but that its much easier to pinpoint where time needs to be spent.

 

I understand how there will always be folks who for some reason refuse to accept that there really is a better way, but I’m just tired of being accused of trying to spread some evil gospel, only because those doing the accusing feel somehow threatened and frightened of change.

We do everything like you basically, except for the above. We want all of our leads to look the same every time, no matter what we're doing. If we see a slightly bigger lead we'll pick over. Eventually we'll just start pitching out. Can't have the baserunner giving things away.

Ironhorse,  Completely understand what you are talking about and respect it.  I just don't see a huge difference in a half a step and it is very hard to detect.  Also when I was talking about another full step I was referring to our green light guys and they are always in that lead.

That makes sense, and if it works it works. But if we ever play you, I'll be a lookin'.......

From back corner in a straight line to the next base...right, left, shuffle, shuffle.  Should be 1 step + a dive back to the bag.  I don't like taking a back angled lead at 2B.  It makes for a longer route to home.

We teach the angled lead at 2B to create a better angle for rounding the bag.  Can you explain to me what you preceive is the distance in the length of the route taken to home between a lead with depth vs having to create a round with the lead your speaking of?

I meant to 3B.  I want to give us a chance to steal 3B.

 

But, since we are talking home, it is very close to a wash given that the angle created by 10 feet of depth really isn't shortening the path from 2B to the plate.  As a matter of fact, on average one team I coached, we  went from a straight lead at 2B to scoring in 1.5 steps (team average) less than taking a lead at 2B with depth.  (Yes, we counted steps)

Stealing and going into 3rd I agree with you 100%.  My guys that have green lights stay in a straight path unless I give them a black light.