07-28-2009, 03:46 PM
<!--quoteo(post=52779:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52771:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52769:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52761:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me reiterate my position. Lou made a high risk decision, and Fontenot blows goats. That's a bad combo.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He should have made contact, I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least I'm not. What happens with the contact and the likelihood that it's a favorable result, I think that's a totally different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's the crux of my argument. IF he makes contact (and doesn't pop it up), he would have done no harm. The worst thing that would of happened is that he would be 1-1 in the count, the suicide squeeze would be off, and Pinella could have used one of Butch's fifteen better ways to score a guy from third. So IF we are in agreement that he should have made contact, then Pinella was totally within his senses to try a surprise bunt (which definitely was a surprise), and take the small risk of a popup, weighed against the (IMO) the larger chance that he can simply put the ball in play, which wins the game. That's a reasonable decision. It might not be the one that you make, but it's a sound, reasonable, decidedly unretarded decision.
Which is the only point I've been trying to make since last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The crux of my argument is that it was retarded because there were 10-15 different things he could have done that were better choices (3-4 of them alone with Fontenot at the plate). It's not like it's a black or white thing, I'm not trying to make it that. It was a probability thing, and the probability of that play working with that player at the plate was low, he should have tried something different. There was no clear-cut right or wrong here, but trying to squeeze there was probably the closest to wrong as he could have gotten.
IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He should have made contact, I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least I'm not. What happens with the contact and the likelihood that it's a favorable result, I think that's a totally different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's the crux of my argument. IF he makes contact (and doesn't pop it up), he would have done no harm. The worst thing that would of happened is that he would be 1-1 in the count, the suicide squeeze would be off, and Pinella could have used one of Butch's fifteen better ways to score a guy from third. So IF we are in agreement that he should have made contact, then Pinella was totally within his senses to try a surprise bunt (which definitely was a surprise), and take the small risk of a popup, weighed against the (IMO) the larger chance that he can simply put the ball in play, which wins the game. That's a reasonable decision. It might not be the one that you make, but it's a sound, reasonable, decidedly unretarded decision.
Which is the only point I've been trying to make since last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The crux of my argument is that it was retarded because there were 10-15 different things he could have done that were better choices (3-4 of them alone with Fontenot at the plate). It's not like it's a black or white thing, I'm not trying to make it that. It was a probability thing, and the probability of that play working with that player at the plate was low, he should have tried something different. There was no clear-cut right or wrong here, but trying to squeeze there was probably the closest to wrong as he could have gotten.