07-29-2009, 08:38 PM
Giff -- Here's a quick response...
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde had 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.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valverde had to throw strikes before that. I mean, surely he didn't want to load the bases in that situation, right? I don't think it was a lack of desire to throw a strike -- he had shown that he was having a helluva time with the ability to throw a strike in that inning (I know he isn't generally known for wildness, but everyone saw that he was all over the place in THAT INNING).
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that you'd like to see someone perform more bunts than that before you could say with any degree of certainty that you're ready to put them in a game situation like that.
So, even if I concede those points (which I don't), I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, it wasn't the ideal situation to execute a suicide squeeze -- a high-risk play to begin with.
Then, like I said before, this wasn't even factoring in the Fox situation.
Fox HAD TO COME INTO THE GAME. By using Fontenot there, he wasted a bench spot and it was completely unnecessary.
The fact that the squeeze was a low-percentage play, given the circumstances, is only part of the reason it was a stupid move. You factor in the Jake Fox portion of it and it is vaulted into the realm of retarded.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde had 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.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valverde had to throw strikes before that. I mean, surely he didn't want to load the bases in that situation, right? I don't think it was a lack of desire to throw a strike -- he had shown that he was having a helluva time with the ability to throw a strike in that inning (I know he isn't generally known for wildness, but everyone saw that he was all over the place in THAT INNING).
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that you'd like to see someone perform more bunts than that before you could say with any degree of certainty that you're ready to put them in a game situation like that.
So, even if I concede those points (which I don't), I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, it wasn't the ideal situation to execute a suicide squeeze -- a high-risk play to begin with.
Then, like I said before, this wasn't even factoring in the Fox situation.
Fox HAD TO COME INTO THE GAME. By using Fontenot there, he wasted a bench spot and it was completely unnecessary.
The fact that the squeeze was a low-percentage play, given the circumstances, is only part of the reason it was a stupid move. You factor in the Jake Fox portion of it and it is vaulted into the realm of retarded.