Looks at 2nd

Some better coaches than I do this, and I'm tempted, but I resist it, because everything in sports is a tradeoff, and IMO this is a degree of over-control of MIF and P that--all things considered--will generate more negative than positive.

I could see doing this in 13-15yo developmental fall ball as a way of forcing P's to learn to vary their holds and looks, and teaching MIFs the balancing act of dodging runners without leaving excessive hitting lanes.

D8'. You took that question right out of my mouth because I've never done that but I'm considering it.... Could be called by catcher or ss...

I'm interested in hearing input too.

I like to have the pitcher and middle infielder mix it up on their own. I think that once you start trying to call looks, you run the risk of being predictable. I also think it is good to let the kids play the game and learn the little games within the game on their own. I then can watch and make sure they are mixing it up, watch the runner and coach for clues, and focus on helping to position our players per the scouting report.

quote:

Originally posted by hsballcoach:
I like to have the pitcher and middle infielder mix it up on their own. I think that once you start trying to call looks, you run the risk of being predictable. I also think it is good to let the kids play the game and learn the little games within the game on their own. I then can watch and make sure they are mixing it up, watch the runner and coach for clues, and focus on helping to position our players per the scouting report.

I like this approach. I think it's just overkill sometimes.

I think some of you misunderstood. I am not calling the number of looks, and they call 99% of the pickoff plays. The players will do that, and like you said they are playing the game w/in the game.

The up side is the mid infield can do their decoys and play games in the middle, but they know they will be back in position when the pitcher goes to the plate. The down side is some kids can't do this smooth and quick enough to keep the game moving at the pace I want.

Another downside is that it risks altering the balance towards shifting too much attention towards R2 and away from Job One--throwing a quality pitch to the batter.

d8-i think you are asking a great question and it's nice to hear baseball discussed at a higher level....some good points on both sides but as coaches i think we need to be careful we aren't just saying "let the kids play" all the time to cover for the fact that we don't want to study or learn more about the game and the possibility that there are indeed better ways out there to do things. Not saying it's right, wrong, or that everyone should do it but let's keep learning and always on the lookout for better ways to do everything.

I have seen some coaches whom I greatly respect have their SS signal the P how many looks to 2B he wanted each pitch. I can see the merit in this, mainly making sure MIFs aren't out of position on the pitch and ensuring that the P is looking at MIF after each pitch for predetermined pickoffs. However, as a former P, I would have hated this. I think coaches are much better served teaching their pitchers to vary looks/pace w/o leaving a MIF in no man's land. I tend to agree that taking this control away from the pitcher could lead to less focus being directed toward the batter.

My college coach had us do this and I have taught it to my kids since they were 10 (they are now 2012 grads).

The reasoning behind it is to a) shut down the running game and b) prevent cheap hits bc the P goes to the plate when the SS is out of position.

I have found the SS is better at calling looks than the P. The P tends to get in predictable patterns, especially in tight situations. I have taught my MIF's how to control the running game and they call 100% of the pick offs.

I can't see it happening any other way.

How do you have your shortstop signal this to the pitcher? Is there any kind of acknowledge signal given by the pitcher? Do you do this every pitch?

Another idea is to have the mif have the option of doing it (younger p on the mound/getting too perdictable/getting good jumps/always being out of position/etc) so he can always go to that system if need be but doesn't have to do it every pitch all year....

D8, I completely understand your point of making sure that the infielders are in position. We combat this in 2 ways. First, all picks are called from the bench or from the middle infielder working the runner. Second, the pitcher is to mix up the looks and step offs to keep the runner close. As a former pitcher, I like to have to pitchers do the looks on their own so they can keep focus on he batter, also, if they control the looks, they deliver the pitch when they are completely ready or step off. This way they never deliver a pitch to anyone's tempo but their own. Our most important rule, never deliver a pitch with the infielders out of position. We also do not spend a lot of time with infielders dancing around back and forth.

I have teams that played games in the middle and I have had teams that did very little....that said, both were effective.

When we had players that called # of looks, it was a quick sequence of signals that took a second or less before the pitcher took the rubber.

We started using this system last summer and really like it. You have to explain to your SS that the number of looks should be based on the type of runner or lead at second base. If a kid is late getting off, signal no look. If a kid wants to keep his feet moving, signal two or three.

Our shortstop would have three spots that he touched on his arm. He would start on a spot and end on the same spot. Glove pointed at the pitcher was no look, one spot was one look, another spot was two looks, and another spot was three looks. PM me if you want more specifics.

Hihm, pmmed. Looking forward to hearing more about your teaching points.