Login

***Butcher*** · 07-28-2009, 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.
</div>
I'm not talking about last night's play, I'm talking about squeezes in general.
QUOTE In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.
Based off of this statement, I'm asking if a suicide squeeze is ever the correct play, in your eyes. It's not an argumentative question, I'm just curious how you look at it.
</div>
Read the first portion of my answer again.

The situation in which it would be the *most* correct would be my 4th bullet point (your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter). It would be absolutely defensible in that situation.
</div>
I'm not talking about defensible decisions, I'm talking about the "correct" decision, by your standards. Unless you're saying there is only one defensible decision, and correct and defensible are synonymous for you.
</div>
If it's early in the game, your starting pitcher is at the plate, is a relatively good bunter, and not a good hitter, I would say that the suicide squeeze could be a correct decision. There are a lot of variables at play, though. The runner at third could be slow. The opposing pitcher could have a tendency to be wild. Etc.

Every situation is unique. But "by my standards," you could absolutely find a situation where a suicide squeeze would be the correct decision.

Clapp · 07-28-2009, 05:42 PM

I like the squeeze a lot at certain times. Like if say Andres Blanco were up with 1 out and a runner just on 3rd. I'd be calling for it even.

***Butcher*** · 07-28-2009, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I like the squeeze a lot at certain times. Like if say Andres Blanco were up with 1 out and a runner just on 3rd. I'd be calling for it even.
And I would agree with you. Why?

Because Blanco is a weak hitter who is far less likely than Fontenot to hit a fly ball deep enough to score the runner from 3rd.

Like I said, there are a lot of variables. Other than the element of surprise, I can't think of a reason why the suicide squeeze was the right play last night.

Clapp · 07-28-2009, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I like the squeeze a lot at certain times. Like if say Andres Blanco were up with 1 out and a runner just on 3rd. I'd be calling for it even.
And I would agree with you. Why?

Because Blanco is a weak hitter who is far less likely than Fontenot to hit a fly ball deep enough to score the runner from 3rd.
</div>
Right.

Giff · 07-28-2009, 05:52 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.
</div>
I'm not talking about last night's play, I'm talking about squeezes in general.
QUOTE In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.
Based off of this statement, I'm asking if a suicide squeeze is ever the correct play, in your eyes. It's not an argumentative question, I'm just curious how you look at it.
</div>
Read the first portion of my answer again.

The situation in which it would be the *most* correct would be my 4th bullet point (your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter). It would be absolutely defensible in that situation.
</div>
I'm not talking about defensible decisions, I'm talking about the "correct" decision, by your standards. Unless you're saying there is only one defensible decision, and correct and defensible are synonymous for you.
</div>
If it's early in the game, your starting pitcher is at the plate, is a relatively good bunter, and not a good hitter, I would say that the suicide squeeze could be a correct decision. There are a lot of variables at play, though. The runner at third could be slow. The opposing pitcher could have a tendency to be wild. Etc.

Every situation is unique. But "by my standards," you could absolutely find a situation where a suicide squeeze would be the correct decision.
</div>
OK fair enough. I was just curious, because I'm not sure I ever see it as option that's necessarily most likely to succeed in a vacuum, but I think the element of surprise almost always makes it at least a defensible move.

bz · 07-28-2009, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't know how to look this up, but I'd love to know how many bases loaded, suicide squeezes have been successfully executed in MLB history.
You know, that's a great question ruby.
</div>

Here's one source...though I don't know anything about the people who figured it out:

QUOTE Is there anyway you can tell me the success rate of a suicide squeeze with two
outs and the game on the line? Or the success rate of the suicide squeeze in
general?

<div align='right'><b>Michael Plummer, Massachussetts</b>

<i>The squeeze play may not be used with two outs. The defense would simply field the bunt and throw out the batter to end the inning. The success rate with 0 or 1 out is the same, and it depends on the quality of the bunter and the infield’s position. Bunters are rated A, B, C or D and their grades decline one if the infield is in or the corners are in. Here are the percentages that show up in the computer game (the percentages in parentheses are the percent of the time that you will be forced to attempt to steal home on a missed bunt:</i>

Bunter Rating Infield back Infield In/Corners In

A suicide 67% (8%) 53% (14%)

safety 61% 47%

B suicide 53%(14%) 39% (19%)

safety 47% 33%

C suicide 39% (19%) 22% (31%)

Safety 33% 17%

D suicide 22%(31%) 14% (42%)

safety 17% 8%</div>

http://www.strat-o-matic.com/sphere/talkshow1004.htm

veryzer · 07-28-2009, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!

I might as well go ahead close the thread now.
</div>

Yes, Clapp's arguing points I haven't made certainly has shut the door on this one. (that's not a shot at you Clapp, as you made some very good points, and made them eloquently, but they were not in response to the point I've been trying to get through to Butch).

Look Butch, I don't know how else I can put this. Lou choosing a strategy which you deem less likely to yield the result you want, does not, by itself, make that strategy stupid, assinine, or retarded. You used at least 2 of those words to describe it last night.

Clapp arguing (successfully)that letting Fox hit was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) that not squeezing there was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) the complexities of roster management in extra innings does not change that.

In fact, in my opinion, he SHOULD have batted Fox instead of Fontenot. But the fact that he didn't choose that option doesn't make him an idiot, an ass, or a retard, as his decision, while not optimal, is defensible. So had the Cubs lost last night night, you would have (yet again) hung it on Lou, because he made a defensible choice you didn't agree with. You would not have hung it on Fontenot for shitting the bed (let alone Johnson or Theriot for going 0-12). It would have been "On Lou". Which is silly. It would have been on the offense. And a significant portion would be "on" Fontenot.
</div>

SWACK! SHUH! TREAT! BT GETS IT BIG TIME TO CLOSE THIS THREAD I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING RUBY SAYS!

no seriously, bt is right. bt also gets it and i love him.

dk123 · 07-28-2009, 06:58 PM

An example...
I don't think the squeeze is a play that is high percentage, the way some here seem to suggest.

***Butcher*** · 07-28-2009, 08:09 PM

Good find, dk.

QUOTE Angels manager Scioscia gambled that Erick Aybar, with a runner on third and one out in the ninth inning of a tie game, could execute a suicide squeeze on a 2-and-0 offering from Red Sox reliever Manny Delcarmen.

Instead, Aybar made a feeble pass at the pitch, and pinch-runner Reggie Willits was run down by Boston catcher Jason Varitek, who after tagging Willits had the ball dislodged from his glove when he hit the ground. But Varitek held on to it long enough to satisfy third-base umpire Tim Welke.

“Erick’s a terrific bunter,” Scioscia said afterward. “He feels obviously badly he didn’t get it down. It was a great count for it. Delcarmen throws hard, which is a challenge, but I think it was, you know, a buntable ball. Erick just didn’t get it done, and that happens.”

The attempted squeeze is not inconsistent with Angels baseball, an aggressive style of play in which they run and bunt and go from first to third and generally try to pressure the opposition into mistakes. Scioscia had employed the suicide squeeze successfully here at least twice in recent memory, once by little David Eckstein back in August 2002, the season that the Angels won the World Series, and once just this past July, when catcher Jeff Mathis dropped a suicide squeeze during a six-run sixth inning.

The play is not an unknown in October, either. In Game 1 of the 2003 playoffs, Oakland catcher Ramon Hernandez beat the Red Sox in extra innings with a two-out, bases-loaded bunt, which wasn’t a suicide play because the runner on third didn’t break until after Hernandez put bat on ball, nor technically a squeeze, since there were two outs. Two years later, in Game 3 of the 2005 playoffs against the White Sox, Juan Uribe squeezed home an insurance run as the Red Sox were eliminated.

In 1997, Omar Vizquel of the Indians was supposed to drop a suicide squeeze against the Orioles but missed. But so did Orioles catcher Lenny Webster, and Marquis Grissom crossed the plate with the winning run in the 12th inning.

In Game 5 of the 2001 playoffs, Tony Womack of the Diamondbacks missed a suicide squeeze, and runner Midre Cummings was tagged out. Then in the same at-bat Womack delivered a game-winning hit.

Braves manager Bobby Cox in the 1991 postseason asked a pitcher, Tom Glavine, to drop a suicide squeeze on a 2-and-2 pitch with the bases loaded. That play blew up, too, as Glavine missed the sign. In 1998, Cox asked Walt Weiss to squeeze – he popped into a double play.

<b>The play, clearly, is fraught with peril. There’s a reason they call it suicide. The percentages are stacked against its success. A soft ground ball would score a runner like Willits from third. A base hit. A fly ball. A wild pitch.</b>

A suicide squeeze, when it fails, is the kind of play that can kill a rally, can kill momentum, and on Monday night, can kill a season.

Aybar is the Angels’ best bunter. He had nine sacrifices in 2008, the fifth-most in the league. He also bunted for a hit safely nine times.

But of his nine sacrifices this season, none came on a squeeze play. Scioscia was asking a 24-year-old kid, who before this season had one postseason at-bat, to execute a suicide squeeze with a season hanging in the balance. The Red Sox were not surprised that the Angels might try; one Sox strategist said afterward he hoped they would.

There would be no bunt, and no recovering for the Angels.

“I’m not going to second-guess my manager,” said Angels center-fielder Torii Hunter. “He made the decision, and I’m going to stand by him. If it had worked, nobody would be saying anything.”

Not that there was ever any doubt, but after reading that article I'm even more convinced that I'm 100% correct in my assertions here.

veryzer · 07-29-2009, 07:45 AM

there was nothing wrong with calling for a squeeze there. nothing. it's not retarded, or asinine, or stupid. it was a good call that didn't work because a major league player couldn't bunt a ball right down the middle. and every time someone says it is retarded, asinine, or stupid, i am 100% sure I'm correct in my assertation. bam! boom! sugey sugey wow!

***jstraw*** · 07-29-2009, 07:51 AM

So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i>

SandbergMVP1984 · 07-29-2009, 07:52 AM

Hold on, let me hunt down an article with some joker's opinion that suicide squeezes are awesome and use it as incontrovertible evidence.

SandbergMVP1984 · 07-29-2009, 07:54 AM

QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i>
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.

***Butcher*** · 07-29-2009, 08:40 AM

QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i>
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.
</div>
If there are better options and you choose the less effective option, it isn't a wise decision. Simple as that.

SandbergMVP1984 · 07-29-2009, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i>
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.
</div>
If there are better options and you choose the less effective option, it isn't a wise decision. Simple as that.
</div>
Maybe the misunderstanding here is that for you "isn't wise" is the equivalent of "retarded"? I can agree with the above statement, but retarded seems a bit extreme to me. Semantics ftw?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me