07-30-2009, 04:08 AM
<!--quoteo(post=53421:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Giff -- Here's a quick response...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Coach mentioned in another thread, if Fontenot gets the bunt down, Fox doesn't have to come in. And as BT has mentioned, when guys like Henry Blanco have been sent up to squeeze, it's clear it doesn't take an expert. Plus, the way I see it, hitting Fonenot instead of Fox, and then squeezing, aren't two separate moves. I think the only reason Fontenot was sent to the plate was so he could lay down the squeeze.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong for thinking the squeeze was the wrong play. Because there's no clear cut right or wrong in baseball 99% of the time. All I want to do is give a reasonable, well thought out, defensible position for an opposing strategy. And since I really feel there is one, I find it difficult to get too upset about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Coach mentioned in another thread, if Fontenot gets the bunt down, Fox doesn't have to come in. And as BT has mentioned, when guys like Henry Blanco have been sent up to squeeze, it's clear it doesn't take an expert. Plus, the way I see it, hitting Fonenot instead of Fox, and then squeezing, aren't two separate moves. I think the only reason Fontenot was sent to the plate was so he could lay down the squeeze.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong for thinking the squeeze was the wrong play. Because there's no clear cut right or wrong in baseball 99% of the time. All I want to do is give a reasonable, well thought out, defensible position for an opposing strategy. And since I really feel there is one, I find it difficult to get too upset about it.
The thing you need to remember is that all Cardinals fans and all White Sox fans are very bad people. It's a fact that has been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being a Cubs fan is the only path to rightousness and piousness. Cardinal and White Sox fans exist to be the dark, diabolical forces that oppose us. They are the yin to our yang, the Joker to our Batman, the demon to our angel, the insurgence to our freedom, the oil to our water, the club to our baby seal. Their happiness occurs only in direct conflict with everything that is pure and good in this world.
-Dirk
-Dirk