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

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=52992:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM:name=Sandberg)-->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-->

Read every word. Thanks for the confirmation. The argument in favor of that squeeze is that it wasn't retarded.

That's all I'm saying...that there is little case to be made...or that has been made for it being the right move in that situation. There were better options Lou didn't use. The debate's fulcrum is somewhere between not the best choice and retarded. It's not between best choice and not the best choice.

And debating whether or not a poor choice is retarded or not retarded is goofy.