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

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53549:date=Jul 30 2009, 06:59 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 30 2009, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53502:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53498:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53497:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53388:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

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.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- 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.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


So just a thought, but while you say you don't want to bunt against a strikeout pitcher like Valverde, doesn't that shoot to shit your point that we should just like Fox swing away? I mean if he is "Pedro Martinez high", as you said, is that a HUGE reason to go ahead and try the bunt? Seeing as a strikeout will leave you in the exact same spot a missed bunt would?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Presumably, Milton Bradley won't be taking off for home plate while Fox is swinging away.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


True, but both the strikeout and the caught stealing on the missed bunt leaves you with 2 outs and a man on third. Might that be a reason for Lou to try the suicide, given Valverde's proclivity for striking out batters, as you have so kindly pointed out?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're grasping at straws.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got to be fucking kidding me. The fact that the batter might strikeout with the winning run at third and one out against a guy you specifically termed a great strikeout pitcher is "grasping at straws", but your idea that Fox is an automatic Sac Fly machine, despite the fact that less than 30 percent of his at bats has produced a fly ball is rock solid analysis?

Honestly Butch, you aren't thinking about this rationally anymore if that's the case.