+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Let's settle this squeeze play shit (/thread-6600.html)
Pages:
1
2
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - ruby23 - 07-29-2009
I'm tired of the discussion and I think everyone basically agrees that there were other/safer/better options than having Fontenot squeeze. What one side of the argument is calling assinine/stupid/retarded, the other is calling a less favorable choice than others, but it just seems like complete semantics to me at this point. I think everyone realizes there were other choices, safer choices, possibly better choices. There's 6 obvious choices up there, pick what you would have done or say what you would have rather done, if your choice isn't up there.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - BT - 07-29-2009
no one is going to pick squeeze. Probably. I'm Pinella's biggest defender, and I chose "Let Fox Swing Away". I don't' think it's really the point of the discussion.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Coldneck - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53164:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:55 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->no one is going to pick squeeze. Probably. I'm Pinella's biggest defender, and I chose "Let Fox Swing Away". I don't' think it's really the point of the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the only point I've ever made. You and Butcher have your own fairy tale argument going on.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - VanSlawAndCottoCheese - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53166:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:58 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jul 29 2009, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53164:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:55 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->no one is going to pick squeeze. Probably. I'm Pinella's biggest defender, and I chose "Let Fox Swing Away". I don't' think it's really the point of the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's the only point I've ever made. You and Butcher have your own fairy tale argument going on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all the sexual tension.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Butcher - 07-29-2009
My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Coldneck - 07-29-2009
Than our points are the same. BT is arguing something totally different however.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - The Dude - 07-29-2009
I voted to squeeze with Fontenot. Clearly Lou was setting shit up for the 13th inning.... and it worked!
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - ruby23 - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53177:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he did. But we're calling the wrong decision, they're calling it the least likely to succeed option or a riskier option. Just because we see it in black and white, doesn't mean everyone else does or even has to. There's a gradient of choices here and I think we all agree where on the gradient the squeeze play falls, we're just calling it 2 different things.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - SandbergMVP1984 - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53185:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53177:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he did. But we're calling the wrong decision, they're calling it the least likely to succeed option or a riskier option. Just because we see it in black and white, doesn't mean everyone else does or even has to. There's a gradient of choices here and I think we all agree where on the gradient the squeeze play falls, we're just calling it 2 different things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Is there anyone on the board that doesn't think Fox should have been batting?
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Butcher - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53189:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53185:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53177:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he did. But we're calling the wrong decision, they're calling it the least likely to succeed option or a riskier option. Just because we see it in black and white, doesn't mean everyone else does or even has to. There's a gradient of choices here and I think we all agree where on the gradient the squeeze play falls, we're just calling it 2 different things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Is there anyone on the board that doesn't think Fox should have been batting?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
So why would anyone make the call to:
A) hit Fontenot in that spot
B) have Fontenot attempt a squeeze?
Can anyone can explain that to me? I can't comprehend why anyone, when presented with several options, would ever choose the option that is less likely to succeed.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - VanSlawAndCottoCheese - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53195:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:23 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Can anyone can explain that to me? I can't comprehend why anyone, when presented with several options, would ever choose the option that is less likely to succeed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really can't believe that you feel that way. It's called a gamble, Butch. Most people make decisions like these from time to time. You sound like a character in a romantic comedy where the safe-thinking stuffed shirt eventually gets coaxed into a night of debauchery by a carefree vixen (BT?).
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - BT - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53195:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:23 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53189:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53185:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53177:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he did. But we're calling the wrong decision, they're calling it the least likely to succeed option or a riskier option. Just because we see it in black and white, doesn't mean everyone else does or even has to. There's a gradient of choices here and I think we all agree where on the gradient the squeeze play falls, we're just calling it 2 different things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Is there anyone on the board that doesn't think Fox should have been batting?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
So why would anyone make the call to:
A) hit Fontenot in that spot
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] have Fontenot attempt a squeeze?
Can anyone can explain that to me? I can't comprehend why anyone, when presented with several options, would ever choose the option that is less likely to succeed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of reasons.
-element of surprise
-managers gut instinct
-we might be wrong.
Last night, Lou pinch hit for Fontenot. Great move. But I can't think of a single reason why he would hit Johnson instead of Baker. Baker hits right handed, can play second without burning a guy, and has probably as good of a chance to get a hit as Johnson. Putting Johnson in was the "wrong" move. Johnson proceeded to hit a 2 run single, which at the time was huge.
Baseball isn't 100 percent about the numbers.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Butcher - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53226:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:47 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53195:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:23 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53189:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53185:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53177:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My point has always been that Lou made the wrong move. It's quite simple, really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he did. But we're calling the wrong decision, they're calling it the least likely to succeed option or a riskier option. Just because we see it in black and white, doesn't mean everyone else does or even has to. There's a gradient of choices here and I think we all agree where on the gradient the squeeze play falls, we're just calling it 2 different things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Is there anyone on the board that doesn't think Fox should have been batting?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
So why would anyone make the call to:
A) hit Fontenot in that spot
B) have Fontenot attempt a squeeze?
Can anyone can explain that to me? I can't comprehend why anyone, when presented with several options, would ever choose the option that is less likely to succeed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of reasons.
-element of surprise
-managers gut instinct
-we might be wrong.
Last night, Lou pinch hit for Fontenot. Great move. But I can't think of a single reason why he would hit Johnson instead of Baker. Baker hits right handed, can play second without burning a guy, and has probably as good of a chance to get a hit as Johnson. Putting Johnson in was the "wrong" move. Johnson proceeded to hit a 2 run single, which at the time was huge.
Baseball isn't 100 percent about the numbers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Results don't prove whether it was the right choice or not. The squeeze play not working doesn't prove that it was the wrong choice, just like Johnson hitting the 2 run single doesn't prove it was the right choice.
Every so often, a completely idiotic move is going to work out in your favor. It doesn't mean you should continue to make idiotic moves because every so often it actually works.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - BT - 07-29-2009
The point is, if we took a poll and said should Lou pinch hit Johnson or Baker, I would have chosen Baker. Which would prove nothing. Johnson wasn't the "wrong" choice, just because I said so.
Let's settle this squeeze play shit - Butcher - 07-29-2009
<!--quoteo(post=53234:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:02 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The point is, if we took a poll and said should Lou pinch hit Johnson or Baker, I would have chosen Baker. Which would prove nothing. Johnson wasn't the "wrong" choice, just because I said so.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK. That's fine. But if you looked at matchups, averages, blah, blah, blah, and the numbers say that Baker should hit instead of Johnson, choosing Johnson would have been the wrong move.