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

[The Dude]

<!--quoteo(post=53077:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is applicable though, it's bascially saying that it may make sense to try to squeeze with the bases loaded and the game tied with one out in the 9th (the BT, veryzer side). It's also saying, that under almost every circumstance, the risks are way higher than the rewards(the Butch, ruby side). It's kind of saying both sides of the fence are correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Excellent. With that, can we end this reparte?