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

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53004:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:57 AM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53002:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52992:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52990:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are better options and you choose the less effective option, it isn't a wise decision. Simple as that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe the misunderstanding here is that for you "isn't wise" is the equivalent of "retarded"? I can agree with the above statement, but retarded seems a bit extreme to me. Semantics ftw?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps.

I just find it astonishing that anyone would ever choose the option that is less likely to yield a positive result. Maybe "retarded" is too strong a word. Maybe.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=52900:date=Jul 28 2009, 05:58 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 28 2009, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->An example...
I don't think the squeeze is a play that is high percentage, the way some here seem to suggest.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Boy, I hate to get back into this, but AGAIN, I feel my position is being misrepresented. In no way shape or form do I think a suicide squeeze is a HIGH percentage play. I do feel that asking Fontenot to simply make contact with a bunt attempt IS a high percentage play. Again, if he bunts fair, we win (most likely). If he bunts foul, no harm. You reset, and try scoring the run in a more conventional way. If he misses it completely, we were screwed. Sadly, Fontenot went with option C.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=52992:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52990:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Read every word. Thanks for the confirmation. The argument in favor of that squeeze is that it wasn't retarded.

That's all I'm saying...that there is little case to be made...or that has been made for it being the right move in that situation. There were better options Lou didn't use. The debate's fulcrum is somewhere between not the best choice and retarded. It's not between best choice and not the best choice.

And debating whether or not a poor choice is retarded or not retarded is goofy.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=53013:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:18 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I do feel that asking Fontenot to simply make contact with a bunt attempt IS a high percentage play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Why? Because a major leaguer should be able to or because Font has demonstrated his ability to?

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53016:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:30 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 08:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53013:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:18 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I do feel that asking Fontenot to simply make contact with a bunt attempt IS a high percentage play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Why? Because a major leaguer should be able to or because Font has demonstrated his ability to?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The former.

[BT]

I'll also add that the idea that asking Fontenot to bunt was on par with asking Hawk Harrelson to stop sucking at announcing, is pretty baffling. Again, if we can expect Henry Blanco to do it, why can't we expect a middle infielder to do it? If we can asking pitchers to do it, why not Fontenot? And that is to get a bunt down. To ask him to simply make contact is really lowering the bar.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=53018:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Again, if we can expect Henry Blanco to do it, why can't we expect a middle infielder to do it? If we can asking pitchers to do it, why not Fontenot?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Because that which is true will trump that which is not?

Managing a team on the basis of what players should be able to do rather than what they are likely to do is...retarded.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53019:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:38 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 08:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53018:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Again, if we can expect Henry Blanco to do it, why can't we expect a middle infielder to do it? If we can asking pitchers to do it, why not Fontenot?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Because that which is true will trump that which is not?

Managing a team on the basis of what players should be able to do rather than what they are likely to do is...retarded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That is an ENORMOUS copout. Asking Fontenot to close games is retarded. Asking Fontenot to play catcher is retarded. Asking Fontenot, or virtually any major league baseball player, to lay down a bunt is what has been done SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

This "asking Fontenot to bunt was insane" meme is becoming absolutely absurd. Again, we ask relief pitchers to bunt, and no one bats an eye.

[Coldneck]

BT, I have no problem with Fontenot being asked to bunt in that situation. It wasn't the best choice IMO, but it wasn't ridiculous either. I guarantee Font would make contact 9 out of 10 times. What was retarted was choosing Font to hit in that situation over Hill. That's why I am pissed. Fontenot should have never been at the plate when all you needed was a flyball to win the game and Fox was coming in anyways.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=53035:date=Jul 29 2009, 09:17 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53019:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:38 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 08:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53018:date=Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Again, if we can expect Henry Blanco to do it, why can't we expect a middle infielder to do it? If we can asking pitchers to do it, why not Fontenot?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Because that which is true will trump that which is not?

Managing a team on the basis of what players should be able to do rather than what they are likely to do is...retarded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That is an ENORMOUS copout. Asking Fontenot to close games is retarded. Asking Fontenot to play catcher is retarded. Asking Fontenot, or virtually any major league baseball player, to lay down a bunt is what has been done SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

This "asking Fontenot to bunt was insane" meme is becoming absolutely absurd. Again, we ask relief pitchers to bunt, and no one bats an eye.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think it was insane. I don't think it was retarded. I do think it was wrong. Beyond that, we can just disagree.

I do think managing on the basis of <i>should be</i> rather than <i>is</i>, is kinda retarded.

[Butcher]

Let me address several points here.

- When several choices are placed before you and you willingly choose the least (or less) desirable or least (or less) effective option, you're either stupid, insane, or retarded. I don't know how you can get around that fact. It's like looking at two stacks of bills and you can pick either one. One stack is a million dollars. The other stack is half a million. Now...half a million dollars is still pretty fucking sweet and I'd love to have it. But if I don't choose the million dollars, then I must be retarded. In this object lesson, sending Fox to the plate is the stack of a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and letting him swing away is half a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and asking him to execute a squeeze play is deciding to skip the stacks of bills and go digging in the couch cushions instead, hoping to find a million dollars worth of coins.

- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?

- Asking Fontenot to bunt, in a vacuum, isn't necessarily insane. But <i>in that situation, with all of the other options Lou could have picked instead (including using Fox),</i> it was.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=53002:date=Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 07:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52992:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 06:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52990:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 06:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So...the wisdom of the call has nothing to do with the history of the player being asked to execute it? It's wise because any major leaguer<i> should</i> be able to lay down that bunt? Reality needn't enter into it I guess.

Many have pointed out that Lou had better options and a better way to manage his bench resources. The pro-squeeze argument seems to come down to <i>arguably not utterly insane.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try reading the thread? From the beginning the argument was not that there weren't better options, just that the squeeze isn't a "retarded" move in that situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are better options and you choose the less effective option, it isn't a wise decision. Simple as that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then when the fuck is the suicide squeeze ever the wise option?

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=53046:date=Jul 29 2009, 09:50 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me address several points here.

- When several choices are placed before you and you willingly choose the least (or less) desirable or least (or less) effective option, you're either stupid, insane, or retarded. I don't know how you can get around that fact. It's like looking at two stacks of bills and you can pick either one. One stack is a million dollars. The other stack is half a million. Now...half a million dollars is still pretty fucking sweet and I'd love to have it. But if I don't choose the million dollars, then I must be retarded. In this object lesson, sending Fox to the plate is the stack of a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and letting him swing away is half a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and asking him to execute a squeeze play is deciding to skip the stacks of bills and go digging in the couch cushions instead, hoping to find a million dollars worth of coins.

- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?

- Asking Fontenot to bunt, in a vacuum, isn't necessarily insane. But <i>in that situation, with all of the other options Lou could have picked instead (including using Fox),</i> it was.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then when the fuck is the suicide ever a wise option?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53050:date=Jul 29 2009, 09:56 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 29 2009, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53046:date=Jul 29 2009, 09:50 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Let me address several points here.

- When several choices are placed before you and you willingly choose the least (or less) desirable or least (or less) effective option, you're either stupid, insane, or retarded. I don't know how you can get around that fact. It's like looking at two stacks of bills and you can pick either one. One stack is a million dollars. The other stack is half a million. Now...half a million dollars is still pretty fucking sweet and I'd love to have it. But if I don't choose the million dollars, then I must be retarded. In this object lesson, sending Fox to the plate is the stack of a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and letting him swing away is half a million dollars. Sending Fontenot to the plate and asking him to execute a squeeze play is deciding to skip the stacks of bills and go digging in the couch cushions instead, hoping to find a million dollars worth of coins.

- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?

- Asking Fontenot to bunt, in a vacuum, isn't necessarily insane. But <i>in that situation, with all of the other options Lou could have picked instead (including using Fox),</i> it was.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


then when the fuck is the suicide ever a wise option?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Those are a few factors that could make it a wise fucking option.

[veryzer]

or a situation where the other team isn't expecting it, isn't ready for it, and when the pitch is right down the middle.