Educate me (again), please.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp
on Apr 13, 2008 1:38 PM CDT
So tday in the 2nd inning, Hart is on 1st, Hardy on 2nd, nobody out, and Suppan at the plate. Suppan starts out the at bat positioning himself to bunt, but when Hart and Hardy advance on a wild pitch, he swings away, eventually striking out.
Watching at home, I started muttering "squeeze" to myself the minute Hart ended up at 3rd. It seemed to me the most likely way to score Hart in this at bat, particularly since (if I'm not mistaken) Suppan is one of our better bunting pitchers. Suppan had less than two strikes on him at the time (I believe the count was either 1-0 or 1-1). Aside from the fact that the Mets might have still been looking for the bunt, isn't it more likely that Suppan gets the run home on a safety squeeze call than it is a fly ball or a ground out to the right side?
If someone can point out what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it. It's been bugging me for an hour already.
0 recs |
6
comments
Email
PrintComments
Just guessing
I suspect the idea is that a fly ball might drop or a grounder might get through the infield and both runs can score rather than giving up an out just to get one when you know you'll need more than one run to win.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Apr 13, 2008 5:35 PM CDT 0 recs
But if giving up one out to get one run isn't worth it, then why was he bunting just to move the runners over in the first place?
It's a facetious question, since I know you're just guessing (though I think you've got enough insight that it's more than just a guess). Probably just my ignorance, but the squeeze still makes more sense to me.
"He just needs to eat some bananas." - Lou Piniella
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on
Apr 13, 2008 7:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
bunting is always risky
I don't think there are good numbers on this, since "bunt attempts" aren't tracked the way that actual events are.
But...bunts get popped up, signs get confused, foul bunts are strikes and thus take the bat out of his hands entirely...of course sometimes it works, but when swinging away is all but guaranteed not to end in a double play, bunting is probably more risky than swinging away, and the reward is a maximum of one run.
Also, if he's swinging away, there are good things that can happen whether or not the infield is in:
if it's in: bigger holes for grounders and short flares
if it's back: runner can score on many groundballs
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Apr 13, 2008 5:52 PM CDT 0 recs
Ok.
I see the point. Does the squeeze make more sense if you had the same circumstances an 1 out instead of nobody out, since you don't have the advantage of backing the pitchers at bat up with a position player coming to the plate with less than 2 out?
"He just needs to eat some bananas." - Lou Piniella
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on
Apr 13, 2008 7:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
maybe a little bit
I really don't know. That makes sense. I think that most managers have a strong preference either for or against the squeeze, which is particularly strong with pitchers at the plate. Ned doesn't seem crazy about it, which given the Crew's track record with pitchers bunting, makes sense to me.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on
Apr 13, 2008 7:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Pitchers
don't wind up anymore. It doesn't work nearly as good as even 10 years ago.
by Braunstalker on Apr 14, 2008 2:45 AM CDT 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
New FanPost
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
97 | 64 | .602 | 0 | Lost 4 |
|
Milwaukee
|
90 | 72 | .555 | 7.5 | Lost 1 |
|
Houston
|
86 | 75 | .534 | 11 | Won 1 |
|
St. Louis
|
86 | 76 | .530 | 11.5 | Won 6 |
|
Cincinnati
|
74 | 88 | .456 | 23.5 | Lost 5 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
67 | 95 | .413 | 30.5 | Won 1 |
(updated 12.4.2008 at 11:13 PM CST)
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
