- Jan 12, 2010
- 19
- 0
We always think about putting our bigger girls at first base, because they are bigger targets and can stretch for throws. I totally agree, but feel we should think about the size of our second baseman for the same reason. Too often we put our smaller infielders at second, thinking they are quick enough to turn the double play. BUT, what happens more often in a game 1) Second baseman turning two 2) Second baseman covering first on a bunt.
Many times, I have seen pitchers and first basemen field bunts and toss them down the right field line. I can't help but think that if a bigger target was covering first that mentally the throw could have been made.
A second baseman is still going to have to have range, but just don't automatically put your smallest girls at second base.
Any thoughts?
As a side note what are the potential problems of a second baseman covering the right side of the infield in an obvious bunt situation?
Many times, I have seen pitchers and first basemen field bunts and toss them down the right field line. I can't help but think that if a bigger target was covering first that mentally the throw could have been made.
A second baseman is still going to have to have range, but just don't automatically put your smallest girls at second base.
Any thoughts?
As a side note what are the potential problems of a second baseman covering the right side of the infield in an obvious bunt situation?