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

[BT]

<!--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-->

yes, I understand why they call it a suicide squeeze. the reason the manager risks "suicide" is because even if he hits it back to the pitcher, the runner is still in all likelihood going to score. As Bradley would have last night.

And can you PLEASE can the "skilled bunter" bullshit? I keep telling you that all he has to do to make sure the play doesn't end as it did last night was to make contact, and you keep fucking arguing that only Brett Butler or Rod Carew could have possibly pulled it off. Fucking Liberace could have made contact last night. You know who the last guy I can remember successfully pulled off the suicide squeeze? Noted bat handler, skilled bunter, master speedster HENRY MOTHERFUCKING BLANCO. And you don't have to go back 30 years to see this amazing rarity. It happened less than a year ago. Is he a much more likely candidate than Fontenot? Really?

[Butcher]

I think I have figured out the difference between us, BT.

In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.

If choice number 1 has a 75% chance of success and choice number 2 has a 70% chance of success and you still go with choice number 2, then I file that decision under "retarded," "asinine," or "wrong."

My guess is you'd think choice number 2 was still a good (or defensible) choice, even if the likelihood of success was slightly lower.

Am I on the right track?

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=52806:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:00 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52799:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:46 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess if that's what you want to think. It definitely was more asinine, mostly retarded, and pretty much wrong though when compared to the other choices available (which is my entire argument).

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52810:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:10 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52800:date=Jul 28 2009, 02:49 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>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-->

yes, I understand why they call it a suicide squeeze. the reason the manager risks "suicide" is because even if he hits it back to the pitcher, the runner is still in all likelihood going to score. As Bradley would have last night.

And can you PLEASE can the "skilled bunter" bullshit? I keep telling you that all he has to do to make sure the play doesn't end as it did last night was to make contact, and you keep fucking arguing that only Brett Butler or Rod Carew could have possibly pulled it off. Fucking Liberace could have made contact last night. You know who the last guy I can remember successfully pulled off the suicide squeeze? Noted bat handler, skilled bunter, master speedster HENRY MOTHERFUCKING BLANCO. And you don't have to go back 30 years to see this amazing rarity. It happened less than a year ago. Is he a much more likely candidate than Fontenot? Really?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only less than a year ago? How about that! How far back in the recesses of your brain to you have to go to find the last sacrifice fly that you can remember?

It wasn't *just* that Fontenot was put it a position he shouldn't have been in. It was a poor decision string that started with not batting Fox instead of Fontenot. Putting on the squeeze play in that situation was only a portion of the bad decision.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=52730:date=Jul 28 2009, 12:40 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 28 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know how to look this up, but I'd love to know how many bases loaded, suicide squeezes have been successfully executed in MLB history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, that's a great question ruby.

[Giff]

Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52821:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.

[Clapp]

As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. We haven't looked like that team lately. Show some confidence in your players.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=52824:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love Clapp.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52824:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!

I might as well go ahead close the thread now.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=52826:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52824:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!

I might as well go ahead close the thread now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Yes, Clapp's arguing points I haven't made certainly has shut the door on this one. (that's not a shot at you Clapp, as you made some very good points, and made them eloquently, but they were not in response to the point I've been trying to get through to Butch).

Look Butch, I don't know how else I can put this. Lou choosing a strategy which you deem less likely to yield the result you want, does not, by itself, make that strategy stupid, assinine, or retarded. You used at least 2 of those words to describe it last night.

Clapp arguing (successfully)that letting Fox hit was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) that not squeezing there was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) the complexities of roster management in extra innings does not change that.

In fact, in my opinion, he SHOULD have batted Fox instead of Fontenot. But the fact that he didn't choose that option doesn't make him an idiot, an ass, or a retard, as his decision, while not optimal, is defensible. So had the Cubs lost last night night, you would have (yet again) hung it on Lou, because he made a defensible choice you didn't agree with. You would not have hung it on Fontenot for shitting the bed (let alone Johnson or Theriot for going 0-12). It would have been "On Lou". Which is silly. It would have been on the offense. And a significant portion would be "on" Fontenot.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52832:date=Jul 28 2009, 04:06 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 28 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52826:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52824:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.

You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.

Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.

What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!

I might as well go ahead close the thread now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Yes, Clapp's arguing points I haven't made certainly has shut the door on this one. (that's not a shot at you Clapp, as you made some very good points, and made them eloquently, but they were not in response to the point I've been trying to get through to Butch).

Look Butch, I don't know how else I can put this. Lou choosing a strategy which you deem less likely to yield the result you want, does not, by itself, make that strategy stupid, assinine, or retarded. You used at least 2 of those words to describe it last night.

Clapp arguing (successfully)that letting Fox hit was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) that not squeezing there was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) the complexities of roster management in extra innings does not change that.

In fact, in my opinion, he SHOULD have batted Fox instead of Fontenot. But the fact that he didn't choose that option doesn't make him an idiot, an ass, or a retard, as his decision, while not optimal, is defensible. So had the Cubs lost last night night, you would have (yet again) hung it on Lou, because he made a defensible choice you didn't agree with. You would not have hung it on Fontenot for shitting the bed (let alone Johnson or Theriot for going 0-12). It would have been "On Lou". Which is silly. It would have been on the offense. And a significant portion would be "on" Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. So you've been completely ignoring pretty much everything I've been saying.

I've said several times in this thread that putting the squeeze on with Fontenot was just one bad decision in a string of bad decisions. But since Clapp said them instead of me, his argument is eloquent and cogent, and I'm just a moron.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=52822:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52821:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about last night's play, I'm talking about squeezes in general.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Based off of this statement, I'm asking if a suicide squeeze is ever the correct play, in your eyes. It's not an argumentative question, I'm just curious how you look at it.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=52838:date=Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52822:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52821:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about last night's play, I'm talking about squeezes in general.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Based off of this statement, I'm asking if a suicide squeeze is ever the correct play, in your eyes. It's not an argumentative question, I'm just curious how you look at it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the first portion of my answer again.

The situation in which it would be the *most* correct would be my 4th bullet point (your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter). It would be absolutely defensible in that situation.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=52841:date=Jul 28 2009, 04:19 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52838:date=Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52822:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52821:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 28 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Honest question Butch. Is a suicide squeeze ever the right move (and thus not a "retarded" move), in your mind?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here are a few things that could make it a defensible decision:

- the bases aren't loaded
- the bases weren't just walked loaded (all three batters reached base via the walk) by the pitcher currently on the mound
- the current batter can't hit a fly ball with any degree of consistency (Cesar Izturis, Juan Pierre, etc.) -- those types of players are usually more adept at bunting because they are forced to
- your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter
- the batter isn't a LHB (a RHB would obscure the play from the catcher somewhat)

I could go on.

I'm not saying a squeeze play is *always* a bad decision. But it sure was last night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about last night's play, I'm talking about squeezes in general.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In my book, if there's a decision that has the highest probability of success, and you go with a different choice (even if the the probability of success is only *slightly* lower (which wasn't the case last night)), then it was a stupid decision.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Based off of this statement, I'm asking if a suicide squeeze is ever the correct play, in your eyes. It's not an argumentative question, I'm just curious how you look at it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the first portion of my answer again.

The situation in which it would be the *most* correct would be my 4th bullet point (your pitcher is at the plate and it's too early in the game to lift him for a pinch-hitter). It would be absolutely defensible in that situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about defensible decisions, I'm talking about the "correct" decision, by your standards. Unless you're saying there is only one defensible decision, and correct and defensible are synonymous for you.