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

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53004:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:57 AM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53002:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52992:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52990:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are better options and you choose the less effective option, it isn't a wise decision. Simple as that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps.

I just find it astonishing that anyone would ever choose the option that is less likely to yield a positive result. Maybe "retarded" is too strong a word. Maybe.