second inning coach used a pinch hitter, Luginbill, to bat for Rohs. Luginbill delivered, bringing in the first two and only runs of the game. So you state that Rohs is hitting the ball so much better this year, so you would have let her hit in the second inning? So if she is hitting the ball so much better, why would you want to pinch hit for her later in the game when it was not possible because she had already be substituted for. Is she hitting better and therefore should bat, or should he hit for her? Not sure your position. As for your suggestion he needs to advance runners, according to the game stats, there were only 5 put outs on fly balls to the outfield, and for 4 of those it was either the final out of the inning or there was no one on base. No chances to advance runners there. When Rohs came up in the 4th and the bases were loaded (and it seems you wanted a pinch hitter although maybe you didn't because she was hitting so much better, not sure which) Rohs hit into a fielders choice where Foster was out at the plate on a force play, should Foster have tried to steal home in order to "advance runners" therefore not getting forced at home? Obviously it would have been foolish to try to steal home, but my point is there were not that many opportunities to advance runners. Furthermore, advancing runners needs to be done when there is a very high probably of success, otherwise you are running yourself out of an inning. When you have a lineup where everyone is hitting over .300 I like our probability of the next batter getting a hit as opposed to the probability of stealing a base or taking a risky chance on the bases where getting thrown out ends the inning and that next batter hitting over .300 doesn't get to the plate with runners on base. Sometimes that runner on on first is not the fastest player on the team and therefore should not try to steal second to avoid the double play. Decisions to challenge calls must be much easier from home when you have the benefit of replay.