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

[ruby23]

All I want to know is how many times a bases loaded suicide squeeze has ever been successfully completed in the history of baseball. I'll bet there's been more perfect games thrown than successful bases loaded suicide squeezes.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53063:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:13 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->All I want to know is how many times a bases loaded suicide squeeze has ever been successfully completed in the history of baseball. I'll bet there's been more perfect games thrown than successful bases loaded suicide squeezes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know where you could find that.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53061:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:06 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 29 2009, 10:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lou couldn't have known where the pitch was going to be (hell, the way Valverde was pitching, neither did he). So that couldn't have factored into Lou's decision.

[ruby23]

Everyone read this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I happened to have heard two sets of commentators discussing the possiblity of the suicide squeeze the past two days. One was with runners on second and third in the top of the 8th and the other was with the bases loaded also in the top of the 8th. Both games were tied I think. I chuckled to myself, thinking, “Are all commentators idiots? Have they ever played the game before (isn’t that what they would ask the analysts?)? Does playing the game all your life even qualify you to make even relatively obvious decisions?” So why was I laughing?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s talk a little bit about the suicide in general. Of course it is a one run strategy, even more so than the sac bunt, although with only a runner on third it is not really a strict “one run strategy” as the batter can still get a single, error, or occasionally a safe on a fielder’s choice. So in general, you would tend to do it when exactly one run adds a lot to your WE. However, like the bunt, it is OK to do it early in a game when it raises your RE (if it EVER does, which I am not sure).

I won’t discuss why, but of course you would only do it with 1 out, never with 0 outs, although I did see a team try it with 0 outs one time (I think the manager was Frank Robinson and I seriously think he forgot how many outs there were). If you want to know why you don’t do it with 0 outs, play around a little with the RE tables.

Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).

First of all, why is a squeeze rarely executed? There are basically 4 reasons. One, the batter has to be a very good bunter. Two, the pitcher has to mostly throw strikes. Three, if you do it too often, the defense can pitch out against you a lot (game theory). And four, and most important to this discussion, is that, like the sac bunt, at best, it is a marginal play. In other words, hitting away and executing the squeeze generally yields around the same WE, even in ideal circumstances. How do we know that? If it didn’t, then managers would be doing it A LOT more often than they do.

So given that (it is marginal, even in the best of circumstances), it is ONLY going to be correct in the bases configuration that yields the highest WE/RE when it is successful and hurts the least when it is unsuccessful. If we look at an RE table, we see that a successful squeeze raises the RE with a runner on 3rd by around .13 runs. Obviously it depends on the batter, following batter, run environment, etc. If you are unsuccessful (generally, the batter misses the ball or someone misses a sign), and the batter gets tagged out at home (on a missed bunt), it cost around .88 runs (the cost is the reason why it is rarely executed and is usually a marginal play at best).

Now, let’s assume that this is the baseline. In other words, this is the typical scenario such that it would only be correct to execute the suicide with different baserunner configurations if the benefit and cost were somewhere around the same (or perhaps better) as with the runner on third. Are they?

Well, with the bases loaded, even after a successful squeeze, you only pick up .03 runs (as opposed to hitting away)! Sure, that might be a little higher with a weak batter or one that grounds into a lot of DP, or the WE might be higher late in a close game. But still, it is a lot worse than with just a runner on third. What is the cost if the batter misses the ball or the sign? 1.1 runs! Surely it can’t be correct to suicide with the bases loaded!

How about with runners on second and third? Well, for one thing, we can say that with the bases loaded, you are almost guaranteed to stay out of the DP with the suicide. With runners on 2 and 3, you don’t have to worry about the GDP, so the suicide must be even less of an attractive option. Let’s see the gain and the benefit. The gain is.... Wait, after a successful squeeze, you actually lose around .02 in RE. Again that can vary and certainly the change in WE may be a little positive late in a close game. What about the loss when the runner gets tagged out at home on a missed bunt? 1.08 runs!

Moral of the story? Assuming that under the best of circumstances a suicide is occasionally a marginally correct play, which I think is a pretty good assumption, given only that it is one of the rarest elective plays in baseball, it is absolutely, unequivocably, NEVER correct to try a suicide with anything but a single runner on third base (with one out of course). So what were these genius commentators even thinking? BTW, not one of them mentioned or discussed the importance of the baserunner configuration.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ruby23]

Here's the only thing I could find about any bases loaded suicide squeeze ever being successful. It's from 1991.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->SAN DIEGO — The Padres salvaged something from a six-game home stand in which they had lost four in a row, using Paul Faries' bases-loaded suicide squeeze to beat the Dodgers, 5-4, Thursday night in front of a crowd of 40,446 in San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium.

The scheduled postgame fireworks display was in danger of taking place on July 5.

But in the bottom of the 12th, Fred McGriff grounded a one-out single to left, and Jerald Clark followed with a single to right. Dodger reliever Jim Gott intentionally walked Benito Santiago, but on a 2-and-1 pitch, Faries pushed a bunt between the first-base line and the mound.

Gott fielded the ball, but McGriff beat his throw to the plate.

The victory salvaged one game in a three-game set with the Dodgers, and leaves the Padres 9 1/2 games out of first place. It also ended the Dodgers' five-game winning streak.

The Dodgers blew a chance to win it in the 10th when Adam Peterson started the inning by walking Mike Sharperson and Gary Carter. Craig Lefferts then came on and, after Alfredo Griffin sacrificed the runners to second and third, Lefferts hit pinch-hitter Carlos Hernandez with a pitch.

But the next batter, Brett Butler, lined to Padre third baseman Scott Coolbaugh, who stepped on third to double off Sharperson.

The Padres had a runner on third in the bottom of the 10th with two out, but Paul Faries flied to right to end the threat.

It was a long, busy night:

- Except for getting doubled off of first and picked off of first, it was quite a night for Tony Gwynn. He went four for five, had one RBI and became the all-time Padre stolen base leader. He stole two bases, giving him 244 and surpassing Gene Richards' 242.

It was only the second time this season Gwynn had a four-hit night--the other was April 22 in San Francisco--and the 19th time he has done it in his career.

- Greg Harris returned to the Padre pitching rotation for the first time since April 22. He left without a decision after facing two batters in the seventh. He allowed three runs on nine hits, walked two and struck out one. He threw 95 pitches--59 strikes and 36 balls--and allowed baserunners in each inning he worked except the fifth.

- The Padres tied a club record by using seven pitchers. It was the ninth time they have done so, and the first time since April 13, 1985.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=53069:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:24 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Everyone read this:

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I happened to have heard two sets of commentators discussing the possiblity of the suicide squeeze the past two days. One was with runners on second and third in the top of the 8th and the other was with the bases loaded also in the top of the 8th. Both games were tied I think. I chuckled to myself, thinking, “Are all commentators idiots? Have they ever played the game before (isn’t that what they would ask the analysts?)? Does playing the game all your life even qualify you to make even relatively obvious decisions?” So why was I laughing?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s talk a little bit about the suicide in general. Of course it is a one run strategy, even more so than the sac bunt, although with only a runner on third it is not really a strict “one run strategy” as the batter can still get a single, error, or occasionally a safe on a fielder’s choice. So in general, you would tend to do it when exactly one run adds a lot to your WE. However, like the bunt, it is OK to do it early in a game when it raises your RE (if it EVER does, which I am not sure).

I won’t discuss why, but of course you would only do it with 1 out, never with 0 outs, although I did see a team try it with 0 outs one time (I think the manager was Frank Robinson and I seriously think he forgot how many outs there were). If you want to know why you don’t do it with 0 outs, play around a little with the RE tables.

Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).

First of all, why is a squeeze rarely executed? There are basically 4 reasons. One, the batter has to be a very good bunter. Two, the pitcher has to mostly throw strikes. Three, if you do it too often, the defense can pitch out against you a lot (game theory). And four, and most important to this discussion, is that, like the sac bunt, at best, it is a marginal play. In other words, hitting away and executing the squeeze generally yields around the same WE, even in ideal circumstances. How do we know that? If it didn’t, then managers would be doing it A LOT more often than they do.

So given that (it is marginal, even in the best of circumstances), it is ONLY going to be correct in the bases configuration that yields the highest WE/RE when it is successful and hurts the least when it is unsuccessful. If we look at an RE table, we see that a successful squeeze raises the RE with a runner on 3rd by around .13 runs. Obviously it depends on the batter, following batter, run environment, etc. If you are unsuccessful (generally, the batter misses the ball or someone misses a sign), and the batter gets tagged out at home (on a missed bunt), it cost around .88 runs (the cost is the reason why it is rarely executed and is usually a marginal play at best).

Now, let’s assume that this is the baseline. In other words, this is the typical scenario such that it would only be correct to execute the suicide with different baserunner configurations if the benefit and cost were somewhere around the same (or perhaps better) as with the runner on third. Are they?

Well, with the bases loaded, even after a successful squeeze, you only pick up .03 runs (as opposed to hitting away)! Sure, that might be a little higher with a weak batter or one that grounds into a lot of DP, or the WE might be higher late in a close game. But still, it is a lot worse than with just a runner on third. What is the cost if the batter misses the ball or the sign? 1.1 runs! Surely it can’t be correct to suicide with the bases loaded!

How about with runners on second and third? Well, for one thing, we can say that with the bases loaded, you are almost guaranteed to stay out of the DP with the suicide. With runners on 2 and 3, you don’t have to worry about the GDP, so the suicide must be even less of an attractive option. Let’s see the gain and the benefit. The gain is.... Wait, after a successful squeeze, you actually lose around .02 in RE. Again that can vary and certainly the change in WE may be a little positive late in a close game. What about the loss when the runner gets tagged out at home on a missed bunt? 1.08 runs!

Moral of the story? Assuming that under the best of circumstances a suicide is occasionally a marginally correct play, which I think is a pretty good assumption, given only that it is one of the rarest elective plays in baseball, it is absolutely, unequivocably, NEVER correct to try a suicide with anything but a single runner on third base (with one out of course). So what were these genius commentators even thinking? BTW, not one of them mentioned or discussed the importance of the baserunner configuration.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I understood some of that! Is RE and WE sabermetric stuff?

[SandbergMVP1984]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.

[dk123]

<!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, why does it matter that the bases were loaded, considering it was the bottom of the 9th in a tie game?

[SandbergMVP1984]

<!--quoteo(post=53075:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:52 AM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 29 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, why does it matter that the bases were loaded, considering it was the bottom of the 9th in a tie game?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the issue is the force at home, which does lessen the chances of success.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is applicable though, it's bascially saying that it may make sense to try to squeeze with the bases loaded and the game tied with one out in the 9th (the BT, veryzer side). It's also saying, that under almost every circumstance, the risks are way higher than the rewards(the Butch, ruby side). It's kind of saying both sides of the fence are correct.

[The Dude]

<!--quoteo(post=53077:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is applicable though, it's bascially saying that it may make sense to try to squeeze with the bases loaded and the game tied with one out in the 9th (the BT, veryzer side). It's also saying, that under almost every circumstance, the risks are way higher than the rewards(the Butch, ruby side). It's kind of saying both sides of the fence are correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Excellent. With that, can we end this reparte?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=53077:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is applicable though, it's bascially saying that it may make sense to try to squeeze with the bases loaded and the game tied with one out in the 9th (the BT, veryzer side). It's also saying, that under almost every circumstance, the risks are way higher than the rewards(the Butch, ruby side). It's kind of saying both sides of the fence are correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I've been saying as well. It was a high risk decision, and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. And Fontenot is awful.

[ruby23]

I wish I had access to The Book that they're advertising on that site.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

<!--quoteo(post=53080:date=Jul 29 2009, 12:06 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jul 29 2009, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53077:date=Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 29 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53074:date=Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Now, the question, and the reason why I chuckled, is, “Would you ever exercise a squeeze with anything but a single runner on third, <b>unless the other runners didn’t count, like in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th or later</b>?” The answer is no (although I suppose it is possible to occasionally be correct).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if you realized this, but the whole analysis is based on it not being the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

It is good analysis, and it was an interesting read, but not applicable to the other night.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is applicable though, it's bascially saying that it may make sense to try to squeeze with the bases loaded and the game tied with one out in the 9th (the BT, veryzer side). It's also saying, that under almost every circumstance, the risks are way higher than the rewards(the Butch, ruby side). It's kind of saying both sides of the fence are correct.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I've been saying as well. It was a high risk decision, and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. And Fontenot is awful.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is what I was trying to get at with the "Jake Taylor" from <i>Major League</i> comment ("So crazy a play that it just might work"). Lou had to know he was bucking the percentages and taking a major risk here, but what's wrong with flaunting the percentages every once in a while?

[BT]

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

Butch, you know I love you like a brother, but the next time I see you I MIGHT have to stab you in the eye with an unsharpened pencil.

Stop making the the argument that there were better options. Stop it. STOP IT. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP IT.

I have never argued that the bunt was the BEST option. That is NOT what I am arguing. That is NOT what I have ever argued. That is completely and specifically NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE to the argument I was making when I asked about relief pitchers. As far as that line of argument goes, the closest I have come to that is to argue that it was an ACCEPTABLE option.

You and others (Jstraw specifically in this case) keep arguing that it's crazy to make Fontenot bunt. Not just in that specific case (I understand there may have been better options), but in general. As if bunting is some exotic skill that only a few people have acquired, and asking any of the lesser beings on the planet to try something as rare and as unique as placing a bunt is the height of lunacy.

Fontenot is not capable of bunting, and therefore shouldn't be asked to do it. That is the point that keeps getting made, and THAT is the point I am trying to refute when I say that relief pitchers (who by your own admission can't hit) are asked to bunt all the time, why shouldn't Fontenot be asked to.

In summary, if I ask you what time the Cubs game is today, your answer should NOT be "He should have pinch hit Fox". If I ask if it is going to rain today, your answers should NOT be " Fontenot could have hit a fly ball". And if I ask "If bunting is so hard, why does virtually every player on the planet get asked to do it at some point", you answer should not be "He had better options".