Let's settle this squeeze play shit

[rok]

I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. It's quite simple.

[veryzer]

i chose other. i think lou should have given fontenot the "grand slam" sign, like he did with soriano later in the game.

oh, and this poll totally misses the point.

[MrSheps]

I would have had Fox swing away because I think it's more likely he hits a sac fly or draws a walk than we execute a suicide squeeze with someone that doesn't bunt a lot.

That said, I don't blame Lou, it was a good thought and would have worked if the bunt got down. I just don't think Font is the best bunter, plus the pitcher was a little wild. I think if you have Fox or even Font swing away with a careful eye you have a good chance of drawing a walk, hitting a sac fly, or getting a hit. I mean Fontenot eventually hit a deep one almost to track in center, if he does that with one out and the runner on third we win.

[dk123]

I don't see what's so fucking complicated. I don't think anybody thinks that the squeeze was the best option in terms of the percentages. Lou took a calculated risk that didn't pan out. It was a risky move, not a retarded one. If it had panned out, he would have looked great, and since it didn't, he looks bad. Basically, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one occurred...that is partially on Fontenot, and partially on Lou for calling the play. In the end, this debate seems to come down to whether you should always play the percentages, and obviously, there will be disagreement about that.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=53399:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't see what's so fucking complicated. I don't think anybody thinks that the squeeze was the best option in terms of the percentages. Lou took a calculated risk that didn't pan out. It was a risky move, not a retarded one. If it had panned out, he would have looked great, and since it didn't, he looks bad. Basically, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one occurred...that is partially on Fontenot, and partially on Lou for calling the play. In the end, this debate seems to come down to whether you should always play the percentages, and obviously, there will be disagreement about that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53431:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM:name=Coach)-->QUOTE (Coach @ Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53399:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM:name=dk123)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't see what's so fucking complicated. I don't think anybody thinks that the squeeze was the best option in terms of the percentages. Lou took a calculated risk that didn't pan out. It was a risky move, not a retarded one. If it had panned out, he would have looked great, and since it didn't, he looks bad. Basically, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one occurred...that is partially on Fontenot, and partially on Lou for calling the play. In the end, this debate seems to come down to whether you should always play the percentages, and obviously, there will be disagreement about that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, as I said in the other thread, this isn't even factoring in using Fontenot instead of Fox burned a bench spot for no reason since Fox had to come into the game anyway. This just adds another layer of stupid to Lou's decision.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=53436:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:25 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53431:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53399:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM:name=dk123)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't see what's so fucking complicated. I don't think anybody thinks that the squeeze was the best option in terms of the percentages. Lou took a calculated risk that didn't pan out. It was a risky move, not a retarded one. If it had panned out, he would have looked great, and since it didn't, he looks bad. Basically, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one occurred...that is partially on Fontenot, and partially on Lou for calling the play. In the end, this debate seems to come down to whether you should always play the percentages, and obviously, there will be disagreement about that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, as I said in the other thread, this isn't even factoring in using Fontenot instead of Fox burned a bench spot for no reason since Fox had to come into the game anyway. This just adds another layer of stupid to Lou's decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Jesus...it was late...he's old...ease up on 'im.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=53436:date=Jul 29 2009, 09:25 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53431:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM:name=Coach)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coach @ Jul 29 2009, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53399:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM:name=dk123)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't see what's so fucking complicated. I don't think anybody thinks that the squeeze was the best option in terms of the percentages. Lou took a calculated risk that didn't pan out. It was a risky move, not a retarded one. If it had panned out, he would have looked great, and since it didn't, he looks bad. Basically, of all the possible outcomes, the worst one occurred...that is partially on Fontenot, and partially on Lou for calling the play. In the end, this debate seems to come down to whether you should always play the percentages, and obviously, there will be disagreement about that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, as I said in the other thread, this isn't even factoring in using Fontenot instead of Fox burned a bench spot for no reason since Fox had to come into the game anyway. This just adds another layer of stupid to Lou's decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Fontenot lays down the bunt, then Fox doesnt have to enter the game.

[dk123]

I find it odd how fans make allowances for human error in everything other than managing. Fans seem to accept that players fuck up, even that umps fuck up to some extent, but if the manager ever does anything iffy, it's like this huge shock. The guy's a human being...these things happen. And yes, I think it was dumb, or at least unnecessary, but jeez....

[MrSheps]

<!--quoteo(post=53471:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I find it odd how fans make allowances for human error in everything other than managing. Fans seem to accept that players fuck up, even that umps fuck up to some extent, but if the manager ever does anything iffy, it's like this huge shock. The guy's a human being...these things happen. And yes, I think it was dumb, or at least unnecessary, but jeez....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't think anyone thinks it's that big of deal, it just makes for interesting debate. And that's a good point on manager/human error. I'm harder on managers because they generally have more time to make decisions. Plus I think physical mistakes are the easiest to understand. Mental errors though, players also get hammered for more. Mangers can only really make mental errors, so they're gonna hear it. This one I wouldn't even call a mental error, it was just a gamble that didn't pay off.

How exciting would it have been if it worked though? I mean that may have been more memorable than the grand slam.