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

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=53324:date=Jul 29 2009, 04:54 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53314:date=Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's the biggest problem I have with what you're saying, Butch. Sure, the highest percentage play is the "best" play. But it is absolutely impossible to break down a single play into such a simple, finite, single number. There is no way to say "Fox had a 35.7% chance to drive in the run, whereas Fontenot squeezing had a 31.4% chance." There is so much that goes into every pitch, every play, that can never be accounted for, that breaking things down like this simply doesn't work. So sure, you, and most people (probably me included), think having Fox swing away was the best option. But it is entirely conceivable that, through everything Lou knows about his players, the situation, and the game, he thought a squeeze was a statistically sound play. And because there is no proof whatsoever that's an incorrect thought, the squeeze argument has a defense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde <i>had</i> to throw a strike, and he was going to do everything he could to do so. A fastball was almost a given, and Valverde isn't generally known for wildness. There's reason to think he would be getting a good pitch to bunt. (You're right, there's also reason to think he wouldn't, but there's both sides to that argument. Just because Lou was on the other side of you, doesn't mean he was on the wrong side.)

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OR: Lou knows his roster well, he's familiar with Fontenot's ability to bunt. He clearly thought Fontenot was plenty capable, and I don't think that's outlandish. Fontenot had 3 sac bunts last season in under 300 PAs, it's not like he's never done this before.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, these are reasons against it. But <i>nobody</i> was expecting it, which also increases the probability, possibly so much so that Lou was virtually positive that if Fontenot could get the bunt down, Bradley would score and the game would be over. Even if I don't fully agree with that, I don't see it as some crazy, ridiculous thought.

BTW, I'm not attempting to disprove each of your points, I'm just giving plenty reasonable opposing thoughts that may have run through Lou's mind.