07-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Then I will ask again, if I was responding to Jstraws contention that Fontenot is not capable of bunting, why would you then say:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly, I was asking why Fontenot should not be expected to be able to bunt. I was not claiming that bunting was a better strategy than hoping for a flyball.
If you think Fontenot is capable of bunting, we don't have anything to argue about. If you think there were better options than bunting, we don't have anything to argue about, as I haven't said otherwise. If you still think bunting was not only unacceptable, but clearly wrong, insane, retarded, etc, then we do have something to argue about.
You understand the burden of proof is much more difficult for you on this than me, right? I'm not claiming bunting was the best idea, simply that it was an acceptable option. Not the best, but acceptable. Even Ruby's piece that completely derides the suicide squeeze as a tactic admits this. You on the other hand, have to not only prove it wasn't the best option, but an option that is beyond the realm of acceptable thought. That it was not just something you would not have chosen, but that anyone choosing it is not acting in a rational frame of mind. That anyone choosing that option is not just responsible for the actions of the player being asked to bunt, but due to the decision being SO bad as to be obvious to even the casual observer, the person asking for the bunt is responsible for any subsequent loss, regardless of the players performance.
Taking this further, since you seem to think that choosing ANY option which is not the optimal choice is "insane", then by extension, bunting in that situation is NO DIFFERENT than asking Bradley to steal home. Or pinch hitting Jeff Stevens for Fontenot, and asking him to swing away. Or asking the players to do jumping jacks on the bases in hopes of causing a balk. They are all insane, since they are not the "best" option.
I'm sure there is a computer program out there that can tell you the optimal move in virtually every situation. I am also sure that managers who pick an option other than what the computer would tell them to do, do it every day without you thinking they are nuts.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly, I was asking why Fontenot should not be expected to be able to bunt. I was not claiming that bunting was a better strategy than hoping for a flyball.
If you think Fontenot is capable of bunting, we don't have anything to argue about. If you think there were better options than bunting, we don't have anything to argue about, as I haven't said otherwise. If you still think bunting was not only unacceptable, but clearly wrong, insane, retarded, etc, then we do have something to argue about.
You understand the burden of proof is much more difficult for you on this than me, right? I'm not claiming bunting was the best idea, simply that it was an acceptable option. Not the best, but acceptable. Even Ruby's piece that completely derides the suicide squeeze as a tactic admits this. You on the other hand, have to not only prove it wasn't the best option, but an option that is beyond the realm of acceptable thought. That it was not just something you would not have chosen, but that anyone choosing it is not acting in a rational frame of mind. That anyone choosing that option is not just responsible for the actions of the player being asked to bunt, but due to the decision being SO bad as to be obvious to even the casual observer, the person asking for the bunt is responsible for any subsequent loss, regardless of the players performance.
Taking this further, since you seem to think that choosing ANY option which is not the optimal choice is "insane", then by extension, bunting in that situation is NO DIFFERENT than asking Bradley to steal home. Or pinch hitting Jeff Stevens for Fontenot, and asking him to swing away. Or asking the players to do jumping jacks on the bases in hopes of causing a balk. They are all insane, since they are not the "best" option.
I'm sure there is a computer program out there that can tell you the optimal move in virtually every situation. I am also sure that managers who pick an option other than what the computer would tell them to do, do it every day without you thinking they are nuts.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.