Lous a freaking idiot Part 2 2009 season

[nick23]

bradley made it to second safely, right? valverde takes forever to get to home plate. i don't have a problem sending the runner there.

 

i also can't believe people were flipping out about sending lee with ramirez at the plate and chris sampson on the mound. that's a no brainer.

 

and yeah, the squeeze is a stupid, stupid play.

 

The squeeze was idiotic. If Fontenot makes contact with a Valverde fastball (which he did), the run scores, game over.

 

The only time I'd squeeze is with Andres Blanco/Ryan Theriot up, 1 out, and the pitcher on deck. Otherwise, it has no place in the Cubs offense.

I didn't have a problem with the squeeze. If he gets it down it's game over. Nobody saw it coming. Also, Fontenot was basically the last chance to score in that inning. Reed Johnson was not going to get a hit against Valverde.

[Rob]

and yeah, the squeeze is a stupid, stupid play.

 

Actually, it was really smart... just badly executed.

[abuck1220]

that makes no sense.

[jersey cubs fan]

and yeah, the squeeze is a stupid, stupid play.

 

Actually, it was really smart... just badly executed.

 

Bases loaded. The guy doesn't have much control, they aren't exactly having trouble getting base runners, a lefty is at the plate, and considering the fact that he couldn't square around early and put it where he wanted, the chances of either missing it entirely or hitting it right to somebody were greater. It was unnecessarily risky. Managers love the praise that comes with calling a "brilliant play" and the vast majority of the blame when it fails goes on the players for failing to execute.

[Keener98]

and yeah, the squeeze is a stupid, stupid play.

 

Actually, it was really smart... just badly executed.

 

The sqeeze wasnt smart. Sending Fontenot to bat instead of Fox, who was already coming in the game, wasnt smart. There is a lot better chance at getting a hit, a sac fly, an error, wild pitch or passed ball, then relying A) on the pitcher to throw a strike B) the batter to bunt the ball fair C) the runner on 3rd making it home before the fielders get him out at home.

 

There were just way to many invariables involved with a squeeze at that time that it makes it a completely horrific decision.

[chuckywang]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

[jersey cubs fan]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

 

Why? It's always easier to call for something like that than execute it. If it succeeds I guarantee Lou gets most of the credit for being brilliant. It was still bases loaded with a guy who isn't a huge bunter (0 sac bunts this year, just 4 in his major league career) and a pitcher who was throwing the ball all over the place.

[nick23]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

 

Why? It's always easier to call for something like that than execute it. If it succeeds I guarantee Lou gets most of the credit for being brilliant. It was still bases loaded with a guy who isn't a huge bunter (0 sac bunts this year, just 4 in his major league career) and a pitcher who was throwing the ball all over the place.

I doubt Lou really cares about being called brilliant. He was trying to win the game. Like I said Fontenot was basically the last chance to get a run in and from the looks of it Lou didn't have much confidence in him to do that. He thought the squeeze was the best chance to win the game.

[Soul]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

 

Why? It's always easier to call for something like that than execute it. If it succeeds I guarantee Lou gets most of the credit for being brilliant. It was still bases loaded with a guy who isn't a huge bunter (0 sac bunts this year, just 4 in his major league career) and a pitcher who was throwing the ball all over the place.

I doubt Lou really cares about being called brilliant. He was trying to win the game. Like I said Fontenot was basically the last chance to get a run in and from the looks of it Lou didn't have much confidence in him to do that. He thought the squeeze was the best chance to win the game.

 

But the argument is, it might not have been the best chance to win the game.

[biittner77]

I didn't see the game. From the replay the bases were loaded, right? A squeeze play with the bases loaded is pretty dumb because if the hitter bunts it back to the pitcher they can get the force at home and probably turn the DP at first.

[CUBZ99]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

 

Why? It's always easier to call for something like that than execute it. If it succeeds I guarantee Lou gets most of the credit for being brilliant. It was still bases loaded with a guy who isn't a huge bunter (0 sac bunts this year, just 4 in his major league career) and a pitcher who was throwing the ball all over the place.

I doubt Lou really cares about being called brilliant. He was trying to win the game. Like I said Fontenot was basically the last chance to get a run in and from the looks of it Lou didn't have much confidence in him to do that. He thought the squeeze was the best chance to win the game.

 

But the argument is, it might not have been the best chance to win the game.

 

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

[SouthSideRyan]

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

The likelihood of success was okayish only because Valverde threw an easily buntable pitch. Valverde was walking the world up to that point. It was a stupid risk.

[Keener98]

Id still like to see what the success rate of a squeeze play with the bases loaded and 1 out it, compared to a guy hitting a sac fly, or just about anything else. I have a hard time believing a squeeze play was the best chance to score a run.

[nick23]

that was just dumb!

 

You know I thought so as well, but it seemed like Lou made up his mind to put the squeeze on before Fontenot's AB. If that was the case, you want to bring a good bunter to the plate, hence Fontenot instead of Fox. Sure, he could have used Blanco but that would have just been too obvious he was going for the squeeze. Fontenot had a perfect pitch to bunt and he just missed it. He deserves more of the blame than Lou.

 

Why? It's always easier to call for something like that than execute it. If it succeeds I guarantee Lou gets most of the credit for being brilliant. It was still bases loaded with a guy who isn't a huge bunter (0 sac bunts this year, just 4 in his major league career) and a pitcher who was throwing the ball all over the place.

I doubt Lou really cares about being called brilliant. He was trying to win the game. Like I said Fontenot was basically the last chance to get a run in and from the looks of it Lou didn't have much confidence in him to do that. He thought the squeeze was the best chance to win the game.

 

But the argument is, it might not have been the best chance to win the game.

I understand. I'm just adding that i doubt Lou wanting to take credit for being brilliant factored into the decision. I'm not even sure if Gooney was saying that. I'll stop typing now.

[jersey cubs fan]

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

No, you're wrong. He had to make contact and put the ball in a place where they couldn't get an easy out at home. He had to hit it fair, or else he's suddenly down in the count. And on top of all this, you had to have a pitcher with control issues pitch a buntable ball. As it turns out they were lucky to get the pitch they did, it's not even certain putting the ball in play helps. A DP is very possible at that point, let alone the force out.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand. I'm just adding that i doubt Lou wanting to take credit for being brilliant factored into the decision. I'm not even sure if Gooney was saying that. I'll stop typing now.

 

I wassn't saying it's factored into his decision, but it is factored into how people view it. If it's a success, the manager is brilliant, if it's fails, the player didn't execute. Managers feel the need to make things happen, part of that, I believe comes from the culture of celebrating those who make things happen as brilliant strategists. Ozzie Guillen stills get credit for Ozzie ball in 2005 even though his team led the league in homers and had ridiculously good starting pitching, something Ozzie had nothing to do with. But that season is for some reason painted as a season when Ozzie made all the rights moves.

[abuck1220]

 

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

i hate this argument. you know, the one that assumes getting down a squeeze bunt is just as easy as putting the bat out there and viola the run scores.

[Keener98]

 

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

i hate this argument. you know, the one that assumes getting down a squeeze bunt is just as easy as putting the bat out there and viola the run scores.

 

Yup people defending the move are ignoring all the mitigating factors that go along with a squeeze play in that situation.

[abuck1220]

another important component of the argument is "BIG LEAGUERS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BUNT."

[MSG T]

another important component of the argument is "BIG LEAGUERS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BUNT."

 

 

I think I'm sensing sarcasm, and if so I agree. A good friend of mine spent a few years at AAA and had a few cups of coffee with the Royals. He had been a power hitter since he was in Little League, and remained that until he was done playing. I'm not sure he laid down a bunt in his entire life, including LL. Why would someone like that be expected to lay one down at the ML level?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The corollary to that argument is that big-league pitchers should know how to place the ball in a way that it can't easily be bunted.

[Banedon]

 

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

i hate this argument. you know, the one that assumes getting down a squeeze bunt is just as easy as putting the bat out there and viola the run scores.

 

Not at all...but it should be pretty reasonable to ask for some contact...

[abuck1220]

 

The likelihood of success on the sac bunt was great. All Fontenot had to do was make some type of contact with the ball. After seeing rally after rally killed by strike outs or double plays, I liked the call, just bad execution.

 

i hate this argument. you know, the one that assumes getting down a squeeze bunt is just as easy as putting the bat out there and viola the run scores.

 

Not at all...but it should be pretty reasonable to ask for some contact...

 

why? i'm sure it's not easy to get down a bunt when 1) you don't bunt very often 2) the opposing pitcher is jose valverde who is wild, throws hard and has tons of movement on his pitches and 3) it's a suicide squeeze in the 9th inning of a 1-1 game.

 

i say fontenot gets the job done with that bunt maybe 50% of the time.

[Old Style]

another important component of the argument is "BIG LEAGUERS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BUNT."

 

 

I think I'm sensing sarcasm, and if so I agree. A good friend of mine spent a few years at AAA and had a few cups of coffee with the Royals. He had been a power hitter since he was in Little League, and remained that until he was done playing. I'm not sure he laid down a bunt in his entire life, including LL. Why would someone like that be expected to lay one down at the ML level?

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do. Unless your name is Albert Pujols, I guess.

[SouthSideRyan]

another important component of the argument is "BIG LEAGUERS SHOULD KNOW HOW TO BUNT."

 

 

I think I'm sensing sarcasm, and if so I agree. A good friend of mine spent a few years at AAA and had a few cups of coffee with the Royals. He had been a power hitter since he was in Little League, and remained that until he was done playing. I'm not sure he laid down a bunt in his entire life, including LL. Why would someone like that be expected to lay one down at the ML level?

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do. Unless your name is Albert Pujols, I guess.

 

But his friend played the game before.