I saw the argument in the game thread....

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53497:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Presumably, Milton Bradley won't be taking off for home plate while Fox is swinging away.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53498:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53497:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Presumably, Milton Bradley won't be taking off for home plate while Fox is swinging away.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


True, but both the strikeout and the caught stealing on the missed bunt leaves you with 2 outs and a man on third. Might that be a reason for Lou to try the suicide, given Valverde's proclivity for striking out batters, as you have so kindly pointed out?

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=53421:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Giff -- Here's a quick response...

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde had to throw a strike, and he was going to do everything he could to do so. A fastball was almost a given, and Valverde isn't generally known for wildness. There's reason to think he would be getting a good pitch to bunt. (You're right, there's also reason to think he wouldn't, but there's both sides to that argument. Just because Lou was on the other side of you, doesn't mean he was on the wrong side.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valverde had to throw strikes before that. I mean, surely he didn't want to load the bases in that situation, right? I don't think it was a lack of desire to throw a strike -- he had shown that he was having a helluva time with the ability to throw a strike in that inning (I know he isn't generally known for wildness, but everyone saw that he was all over the place in THAT INNING).

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: Lou knows his roster well, he's familiar with Fontenot's ability to bunt. He clearly thought Fontenot was plenty capable, and I don't think that's outlandish. Fontenot had 3 sac bunts last season in under 300 PAs, it's not like he's never done this before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that you'd like to see someone perform more bunts than that before you could say with any degree of certainty that you're ready to put them in a game situation like that.


So, even if I concede those points (which I don't), I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, it wasn't the ideal situation to execute a suicide squeeze -- a high-risk play to begin with.

Then, like I said before, this wasn't even factoring in the Fox situation.

Fox HAD TO COME INTO THE GAME. By using Fontenot there, he wasted a bench spot and it was completely unnecessary.

The fact that the squeeze was a low-percentage play, given the circumstances, is only part of the reason it was a stupid move. You factor in the Jake Fox portion of it and it is vaulted into the realm of retarded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Coach mentioned in another thread, if Fontenot gets the bunt down, Fox doesn't have to come in. And as BT has mentioned, when guys like Henry Blanco have been sent up to squeeze, it's clear it doesn't take an expert. Plus, the way I see it, hitting Fonenot instead of Fox, and then squeezing, aren't two separate moves. I think the only reason Fontenot was sent to the plate was so he could lay down the squeeze.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong for thinking the squeeze was the wrong play. Because there's no clear cut right or wrong in baseball 99% of the time. All I want to do is give a reasonable, well thought out, defensible position for an opposing strategy. And since I really feel there is one, I find it difficult to get too upset about it.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53502:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53498:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53497:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Presumably, Milton Bradley won't be taking off for home plate while Fox is swinging away.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


True, but both the strikeout and the caught stealing on the missed bunt leaves you with 2 outs and a man on third. Might that be a reason for Lou to try the suicide, given Valverde's proclivity for striking out batters, as you have so kindly pointed out?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're grasping at straws.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53536:date=Jul 30 2009, 03:08 AM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 30 2009, 03:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53421:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Giff -- Here's a quick response...

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde had to throw a strike, and he was going to do everything he could to do so. A fastball was almost a given, and Valverde isn't generally known for wildness. There's reason to think he would be getting a good pitch to bunt. (You're right, there's also reason to think he wouldn't, but there's both sides to that argument. Just because Lou was on the other side of you, doesn't mean he was on the wrong side.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valverde had to throw strikes before that. I mean, surely he didn't want to load the bases in that situation, right? I don't think it was a lack of desire to throw a strike -- he had shown that he was having a helluva time with the ability to throw a strike in that inning (I know he isn't generally known for wildness, but everyone saw that he was all over the place in THAT INNING).

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: Lou knows his roster well, he's familiar with Fontenot's ability to bunt. He clearly thought Fontenot was plenty capable, and I don't think that's outlandish. Fontenot had 3 sac bunts last season in under 300 PAs, it's not like he's never done this before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that you'd like to see someone perform more bunts than that before you could say with any degree of certainty that you're ready to put them in a game situation like that.


So, even if I concede those points (which I don't), I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, it wasn't the ideal situation to execute a suicide squeeze -- a high-risk play to begin with.

Then, like I said before, this wasn't even factoring in the Fox situation.

Fox HAD TO COME INTO THE GAME. By using Fontenot there, he wasted a bench spot and it was completely unnecessary.

The fact that the squeeze was a low-percentage play, given the circumstances, is only part of the reason it was a stupid move. You factor in the Jake Fox portion of it and it is vaulted into the realm of retarded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Coach mentioned in another thread, if Fontenot gets the bunt down, Fox doesn't have to come in. And as BT has mentioned, when guys like Henry Blanco have been sent up to squeeze, it's clear it doesn't take an expert. Plus, the way I see it, hitting Fonenot instead of Fox, and then squeezing, aren't two separate moves. I think the only reason Fontenot was sent to the plate was so he could lay down the squeeze.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong for thinking the squeeze was the wrong play. Because there's no clear cut right or wrong in baseball 99% of the time. All I want to do is give a reasonable, well thought out, defensible position for an opposing strategy. And since I really feel there is one, I find it difficult to get too upset about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If getting a bunt down is such an easy task, as you and BT seem to claim (EVERY major league player can do it, right?), then why not have Fox do it? He had to come into the game anyway. He's a RHB, so he blocks the play from Pudge. And you don't burn a bench spot.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53549:date=Jul 30 2009, 06:59 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 30 2009, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53502:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53498:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53497:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Presumably, Milton Bradley won't be taking off for home plate while Fox is swinging away.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


True, but both the strikeout and the caught stealing on the missed bunt leaves you with 2 outs and a man on third. Might that be a reason for Lou to try the suicide, given Valverde's proclivity for striking out batters, as you have so kindly pointed out?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're grasping at straws.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got to be fucking kidding me. The fact that the batter might strikeout with the winning run at third and one out against a guy you specifically termed a great strikeout pitcher is "grasping at straws", but your idea that Fox is an automatic Sac Fly machine, despite the fact that less than 30 percent of his at bats has produced a fly ball is rock solid analysis?

Honestly Butch, you aren't thinking about this rationally anymore if that's the case.

[Butcher]

Did you or did you not say several times that you think sending Fox to the plate in that situation was the better move? Then why are you arguing the other way now?

[Butcher]

Not only is Fox a good fly ball hitter, he's also a good hitter. HITTING A FLY BALL WASN'T THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IT. He's batting .312. He could have drawn a walk. He could have hit a fly ball. He could have blooped a single into center. Lots of good potential outcomes. Sure, he could have failed -- I'm not saying putting Fox in was a guaranteed win. I sure like the odds better, though.

[veryzer]

this is getting boring.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53589:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->this is getting boring.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, especially since most everyone else believes that the fault lies in Fontenot.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=53595:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53589:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->this is getting boring.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, especially since most everyone else believes that the fault lies in Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

yep, because if he makes contact with a straight fastball right down the middle, this conversation is moot.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53595:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53589:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->this is getting boring.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, especially since most everyone else believes that the fault lies in Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The result doesn't justify the decision. If it did, there would be no argument against my side of the discussion.

You know what's funny about your comment? Most everyone believes that using Fox instead of Fontenot was the better move.

So there's that, too.

Now...go fuck a toaster. Plugged in.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53600:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:45 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 30 2009, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53595:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53589:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->this is getting boring.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, especially since most everyone else believes that the fault lies in Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The result doesn't justify the decision. If it did, there would be no argument against my side of the discussion.

You know what's funny about your comment? Most everyone believes that using Fox instead of Fontenot was the better move.

So there's that, too.

Now...go fuck a toaster. Plugged in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I even think we should have used Fox in that situation. But we didn't and the play selected (one that was perfectly fine and within the scope of Fontenot's ability) wasn't executed. The play wasn't executed. The play wasn't executed.

And I'm not going to go into what <i>might</i> have happened in Fox's at-bat because A) BT has already pwned you thoroughly there and [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] it never happened so it's pure speculation.

So you can go ahead and argue about things that didn't happen and can't be proven, while I'll continue to contend that the play that was called, that happened in reality and not the hypothetical world of the baseball conscious was poorly executed by the person called upon to do so.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53616:date=Jul 30 2009, 10:06 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 30 2009, 10:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You can continue to do and claim whatever you please. But you'll continue to be wrong. And a douchebag.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you agree with me then?