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

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=52753:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:12 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52746:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:03 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 28 2009, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52738:date=Jul 28 2009, 12:51 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 28 2009, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's a fucking BUNT! Am I going absolutely crazy here! IT'S A FUCKING BUNT! I could send Veryzer out there with two chicks in bondage fucking eachother on 2nd, while he's eating a fucking hoagie and he could lay down a fucking bunt!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


you know whats funny? on that particular pitch, i'm fairly certain i could at least have made contact.

the fact that it was a suicide means to me it should have been easier, because he didn't have to lay down a perfect bunt. bradley was 2/3 the way there. it just had to hit the ground.

my 13 year old daughter bunts successfully all the time. lou should have called her.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On that particular pitch, you would've shit in your pants and died of a heart attack on the spot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


okay, you're probably right. fucker.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=52769:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52761:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me reiterate my position. Lou made a high risk decision, and Fontenot blows goats. That's a bad combo.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


and conceivably, he could have popped up and still been successful, as long as it wasn't straight up or right to the pitcher. the infield was that far back.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

If you bring Blanco in there with Font and Fox on the bench, then the defense will play for the squeeze. Lou tried to pull a Jake Taylor here and catch the D napping. The Font whiffed.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=52771:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52769:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52761:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me reiterate my position. Lou made a high risk decision, and Fontenot blows goats. That's a bad combo.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He should have made contact, I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least I'm not. What happens with the contact and the likelihood that it's a favorable result, I think that's a totally different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But that's the crux of my argument. IF he makes contact (and doesn't pop it up), he would have done no harm. The worst thing that would of happened is that he would be 1-1 in the count, the suicide squeeze would be off, and Pinella could have used one of Butch's fifteen better ways to score a guy from third. So IF we are in agreement that he should have made contact, then Pinella was totally within his senses to try a surprise bunt (which definitely was a surprise), and take the small risk of a popup, weighed against the (IMO) the larger chance that he can simply put the ball in play, which wins the game. That's a reasonable decision. It might not be the one that you make, but it's a sound, reasonable, decidedly unretarded decision.

Which is the only point I've been trying to make since last night.

[Butcher]

Because the bases were loaded, there's a force at the plate, which makes it even riskier. If he bunts it back to the pitcher or not far enough away from the catcher, then Milton is out. If he pops the bunt up, it's a likely double play. If he whiffs, Milton is tagged out.

Just bunting the ball in play is no guarantee that Milton scores.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=52713:date=Jul 28 2009, 11:51 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Your job, as a manager, is to put your players in the best situation possible for a successful outcome to result. Lou did not even come close to doing that with Fontenot in the 9th last night. Having Blanco try to bunt, PHing with Fox, letting Fontenot swing away, sending Fontenot up there without a bat in his hand, etc., etc., etc. would have all been better choices than doing what he did. Sure, Fontenot should have been able to make contact on a bunt attempt, but he should have never been bunting in the first place since it was about the 15th best option at that point.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Word.

[Butcher]

You know what else I just thought of that makes that play even more idiotic?

Squeezing with a LHB allows the catcher to see the play developing pretty clearly.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=52785:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:29 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You know what else I just thought of that makes that play even more idiotic?

Squeezing with a LHB allows the catcher to see the play developing pretty clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so you're saying the font should have batted from the right side?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52788:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:31 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jul 28 2009, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52785:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:29 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You know what else I just thought of that makes that play even more idiotic?

Squeezing with a LHB allows the catcher to see the play developing pretty clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so you're saying the font should have batted from the right side?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=52781:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the bases were loaded, there's a force at the plate, which makes it even riskier. If he bunts it back to the pitcher or not far enough away from the catcher, then Milton is out. If he pops the bunt up, it's a likely double play. If he whiffs, Milton is tagged out.

Just bunting the ball in play is no guarantee that Milton scores.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


a regular bunt, you are right. A suicide squeeze you are (and have been for most of the last 15 hours) wrong. Bradley was 15 feet away when Fontenot whiffed.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=52779:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52771:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52769:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52761:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me reiterate my position. Lou made a high risk decision, and Fontenot blows goats. That's a bad combo.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He should have made contact, I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least I'm not. What happens with the contact and the likelihood that it's a favorable result, I think that's a totally different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But that's the crux of my argument. IF he makes contact (and doesn't pop it up), he would have done no harm. The worst thing that would of happened is that he would be 1-1 in the count, the suicide squeeze would be off, and Pinella could have used one of Butch's fifteen better ways to score a guy from third. So IF we are in agreement that he should have made contact, then Pinella was totally within his senses to try a surprise bunt (which definitely was a surprise), and take the small risk of a popup, weighed against the (IMO) the larger chance that he can simply put the ball in play, which wins the game. That's a reasonable decision. It might not be the one that you make, but it's a sound, reasonable, decidedly unretarded decision.

Which is the only point I've been trying to make since last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The crux of my argument is that it was retarded because there were 10-15 different things he could have done that were better choices (3-4 of them alone with Fontenot at the plate). It's not like it's a black or white thing, I'm not trying to make it that. It was a probability thing, and the probability of that play working with that player at the plate was low, he should have tried something different. There was no clear-cut right or wrong here, but trying to squeeze there was probably the closest to wrong as he could have gotten.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52793:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:40 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52781:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the bases were loaded, there's a force at the plate, which makes it even riskier. If he bunts it back to the pitcher or not far enough away from the catcher, then Milton is out. If he pops the bunt up, it's a likely double play. If he whiffs, Milton is tagged out.

Just bunting the ball in play is no guarantee that Milton scores.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


a regular bunt, you are right. A suicide squeeze you are (and have been for most of the last 15 hours) wrong. Bradley was 15 feet away when Fontenot whiffed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, if Fontenot bunts it right back to the pitcher, Milton still scores? I think there's a pretty good chance he's out -- especially since there's a force at the plate.

You know why it's called a suicide squeeze, right, BT? Because if your batter doesn't make contact, the runner is fucked (hence, the suicide). That's why, if you're going to execute that play, it requires a skilled bunter who can make contact consistently, even on difficult pitches. That person clearly isn't Fontenot.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=52800:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:49 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52793:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:40 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52781:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the bases were loaded, there's a force at the plate, which makes it even riskier. If he bunts it back to the pitcher or not far enough away from the catcher, then Milton is out. If he pops the bunt up, it's a likely double play. If he whiffs, Milton is tagged out.

Just bunting the ball in play is no guarantee that Milton scores.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


a regular bunt, you are right. A suicide squeeze you are (and have been for most of the last 15 hours) wrong. Bradley was 15 feet away when Fontenot whiffed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, if Fontenot bunts it right back to the pitcher, Milton still scores? I think there's a pretty good chance he's out -- especially since there's a force at the plate.

You know why it's called a suicide squeeze, right, BT? Because if your batter doesn't make contact, the runner is fucked (hence, the suicide). That's why, if you're going to execute that play, it requires a skilled bunter who can make contact consistently, even on difficult pitches. That person clearly isn't Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No manager will ever, ever, ever ask Font to do that again...unless doing so is rendered brilliant by how much more no one will ever expect it, NOW.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=52799:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:46 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52779:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52771:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52769:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52761:date=Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 28 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me reiterate my position. Lou made a high risk decision, and Fontenot blows goats. That's a bad combo.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

IMO it wasn't that high of a risk though. All he had to do was make contact. Even if squeeze bunting is truly as godalmighty difficult as Butch (and others) have been arguing, fouling off a bunt isn't. I'll grant you there was a risk that he could pop it up, but seriously, how risky is it to believe a major leaguer can simply make CONTACT with a pitch, by bunting at it? Even the crappiest pitcher trying to bunt usually strikes out by fouling off 3. It is truly rare that they miss it completely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He should have made contact, I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least I'm not. What happens with the contact and the likelihood that it's a favorable result, I think that's a totally different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But that's the crux of my argument. IF he makes contact (and doesn't pop it up), he would have done no harm. The worst thing that would of happened is that he would be 1-1 in the count, the suicide squeeze would be off, and Pinella could have used one of Butch's fifteen better ways to score a guy from third. So IF we are in agreement that he should have made contact, then Pinella was totally within his senses to try a surprise bunt (which definitely was a surprise), and take the small risk of a popup, weighed against the (IMO) the larger chance that he can simply put the ball in play, which wins the game. That's a reasonable decision. It might not be the one that you make, but it's a sound, reasonable, decidedly unretarded decision.

Which is the only point I've been trying to make since last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The crux of my argument is that it was retarded because there were 10-15 different things he could have done that were better choices (3-4 of them alone with Fontenot at the plate). It's not like it's a black or white thing, I'm not trying to make it that. It was a probability thing, and the probability of that play working with that player at the plate was low, he should have tried something different. There was no clear-cut right or wrong here, but trying to squeeze there was probably the closest to wrong as he could have gotten.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

As I said, you may have chosen to do something different. That doesn't make Lou's decision asinine, retarded or wrong, as many last night chose to call it.

[biggz]

I know I'm way late to the discussion, but my biggest problem was Fox wasn't called on to bat at all since he had to come into the game anyway.

I don't love the squeeze there, but it is certainly justifiable. Not the best move, but not "OMFG, LOU'S GONE SENILE!" Still, I hate Font more for that relay throw than anything.