Lous a freaking idiot Part 2 2009 season

[abuck1220]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

[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?

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.

 

 

Basic skill for some guys. Stealing a base is a basic skill, and there's a lot of guys that can't do that. And people, rightfully, get upset if one of them gets thrown out trying to steal in a big spot. That is no different than a bunt.

[MSG T]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

What he said.

 

And I'd add half of ML position players to that list, not just Pujols or Howard.

[Banedon]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

I get your point and all, but come on....Mike Fontenot is not, and never will be, Ryan Howard.

[abuck1220]

yeah, he sucks. i'm not arguing that. he should have been able to get the bunt down.

 

but him not being able to do it really isn't any worse than lou asking him to do it when he must not be very good at it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

I get your point and all, but come on....Mike Fontenot is not, and never will be, Ryan Howard.

 

Nor is he somebody with a history of bunting. He has zero this year, and just 4 as a major leaguer. He's a let it all hang out hitter, even if he doesn't hit for Howard power. Just because people think that he should have been able to get it down doesn't mean it's a good idea to expect him to get it down, not as lefty, with the bases loaded, facing a wild pitcher and limited bunting history.

 

If a guy can't do something and you ask him to and he fails, then yes, he failed, but you're an idiot for asking him to do something he probably isn't good at doing.

[Tyrant]

Nor is he somebody with a history of bunting.

 

He's also not somebody with a history of hitting. He's a .229 hitter who hits a lot of ground balls and infield pop ups. And with Reed Johnson on deck, chances aren't great that he'll get a hit either.

 

I think the potential payoff of a successful squeeze (a win) was worth the risk in that particular situation. Squeezes make less sense in lower leverage situations, because the risk being taken won't pay off with as great of a reward.

 

However, like other people have said in the thread, I'd like to see info on the success rate of suicide squeezes. I found someone who randomly said it was 86 percent, but that had no source and it seems far too high.

[Keener98]

Nor is he somebody with a history of bunting.

 

He's also not somebody with a history of hitting. He's a .229 hitter who hits a lot of ground balls and infield pop ups. And with Reed Johnson on deck, chances aren't great that he'll get a hit either.

 

I think the potential payoff of a successful squeeze (a win) was worth the risk in that particular situation. Squeezes make less sense in lower leverage situations, because the risk being taken won't pay off with as great of a reward.

 

However, like other people have said in the thread, I'd like to see info on the success rate of suicide squeezes. I found someone who randomly said it was 86 percent, but that had no source and it seems far too high.

 

 

Well thats why Fox should have been the guy pinch hitting

[SouthSideRyan]

Nor is he somebody with a history of bunting.

 

He's also not somebody with a history of hitting. He's a .229 hitter who hits a lot of ground balls and infield pop ups. And with Reed Johnson on deck, chances aren't great that he'll get a hit either.

 

THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE PINCH HIT THE [expletive] GUY STILL SITTING ON THE BENCH WHO COULD HIT.

 

THE GUY WHO WAS COMING INTO THE GAME ON DEFENSE ANYWAY.

 

(Not aimed at you)

 

However, like other people have said in the thread, I'd like to see info on the success rate of suicide squeezes. I found someone who randomly said it was 86 percent, but that had no source and it seems far too high.

 

Any stat on the success of squeezes is likely only going to take into squeezes in which the ball was bunted in fair territory. (Ignoring all attempts like Fontenot's last night or when the ball is bunted foul)

 

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

[Keener98]

Nor is he somebody with a history of bunting.

 

He's also not somebody with a history of hitting. He's a .229 hitter who hits a lot of ground balls and infield pop ups. And with Reed Johnson on deck, chances aren't great that he'll get a hit either.

 

THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE PINCH HIT THE [expletive] GUY STILL SITTING ON THE BENCH WHO COULD HIT.

 

THE GUY WHO WAS COMING INTO THE GAME ON DEFENSE ANYWAY.

 

(Not aimed at you)

 

However, like other people have said in the thread, I'd like to see info on the success rate of suicide squeezes. I found someone who randomly said it was 86 percent, but that had no source and it seems far too high.

 

Any stat on the success of squeezes is likely only going to take into squeezes in which the ball was bunted in fair territory. (Ignoring all attempts like Fontenot's last night or when the ball is bunted foul)

 

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

 

Also probably wouldnt take into account suicide squeezes vs safety squeezes

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

 

I seem to recall someone (BP?) doing a study that shows when you take into all of that plus fielding errors, sac bunts move closer to a positive proposition.

[jersey cubs fan]

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

 

I seem to recall someone (BP?) doing a study that shows when you take into all of that plus fielding errors, sac bunts move closer to a positive proposition.

 

Wait, when you include all the bad things that can happen when you sac bunt it becomes closer to a positive proposition?

[Old Style]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

I get your point and all, but come on....Mike Fontenot is not, and never will be, Ryan Howard.

Exactly. Obviously I don't ever expect a guy like Ryan Howard, Aramis, Fielder, etc to be asked to bunt, but a guy like Fontenot HAS to be able to bunt. There's no excuse for him not possessing that skill. Just like any fast player should know how to properly steal a base. And so on.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

I get your point and all, but come on....Mike Fontenot is not, and never will be, Ryan Howard.

Exactly. Obviously I don't ever expect a guy like Ryan Howard, Aramis, Fielder, etc to be asked to bunt, but a guy like Fontenot HAS to be able to bunt. There's no excuse for him not possessing that skill. Just like any fast player should know how to properly steal a base. And so on.

 

Should, and does are different things. If he doesn't have the skill (and there is no evidence that he does) then just because you think he should doesn't justify asking him to do it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

 

I seem to recall someone (BP?) doing a study that shows when you take into all of that plus fielding errors, sac bunts move closer to a positive proposition.

 

Wait, when you include all the bad things that can happen when you sac bunt it becomes closer to a positive proposition?

 

Fielding errors (and bunts for hits) are a positive proposition for the offense. They not only outweigh the force outs and failed bunts, they actually push the attempt closer to breakeven (not that it was ever that far off, it was always pretty close).

[jersey cubs fan]

Similar to when people cite stats on runs on sac bunts. Nobody ever counts those bunts where a guy is forced out, or when the guy whiffs on it/puts it foul

 

I seem to recall someone (BP?) doing a study that shows when you take into all of that plus fielding errors, sac bunts move closer to a positive proposition.

 

Wait, when you include all the bad things that can happen when you sac bunt it becomes closer to a positive proposition?

 

Fielding errors (and bunts for hits) are a positive proposition for the offense. They not only outweigh the force outs and failed bunts, they actually push the attempt closer to breakeven (not that it was ever that far off, it was always pretty close).

 

Bunting for a hit is an entirely different proposition.

[Banedon]

yeah, he sucks. i'm not arguing that. he should have been able to get the bunt down.

 

but him not being able to do it really isn't any worse than lou asking him to do it when he must not be very good at it.

 

Fair enough.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bunting for a hit is an entirely different proposition.

 

Sac bunting can occasionally result in a hit, whether you are trying or not.

 

Point is, a successful sacrifice bunt slightly lowers the team's chance of winning. The chance that the bunt will be mishandled by the defense negates some of that.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bunting for a hit is an entirely different proposition.

 

Sac bunting can occasionally result in a hit, whether you are trying or not.

 

Point is, a successful sacrifice bunt slightly lowers the team's chance of winning. The chance that the bunt will be mishandled by the defense negates some of that.

 

How do they determine if the guy was trying to sac bunt or for a hit?

[Old Style]

Because it's a basic skill of the game that every major league hitter should know how to do.

 

why? you want ryan howard practicing bunts on the one in a million chance he's going to be asked to do it?

 

just because you could bunt in high school against a guy throwing 68 mph doesn't mean every major leaguer is going to be able to do it against a major league pitcher.

 

I get your point and all, but come on....Mike Fontenot is not, and never will be, Ryan Howard.

Exactly. Obviously I don't ever expect a guy like Ryan Howard, Aramis, Fielder, etc to be asked to bunt, but a guy like Fontenot HAS to be able to bunt. There's no excuse for him not possessing that skill. Just like any fast player should know how to properly steal a base. And so on.

 

Should, and does are different things. If he doesn't have the skill (and there is no evidence that he does) then just because you think he should doesn't justify asking him to do it.

I'm not arguing against you on that one.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bunting for a hit is an entirely different proposition.

 

Sac bunting can occasionally result in a hit, whether you are trying or not.

 

Point is, a successful sacrifice bunt slightly lowers the team's chance of winning. The chance that the bunt will be mishandled by the defense negates some of that.

 

How do they determine if the guy was trying to sac bunt or for a hit?

 

IIRC, they just used bunts in obvious sacrifice situations.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

ugh

 

someone i work with is trying to tell me that monday night was one of lou's best-managed games all year, leaving zambrano in to hit and then immediately taking him out was brilliant, and so was the hit and run with soriano and bradley. #-o

[Guest]

A few days late on the whole suicide squeeze on Monday thing but...

 

You have the bases loaded and one out in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. Obviously all you need is one run. Why don't you put in the guy (Fox) who seems to be a lot more of a flyball hitter since a sac fly wins you the game? Yeah, Fox could ground into a DP, but so could Fontenot if you let both swing away.

 

I don't mind suicide squeezes, but I'd venture to guess that there's a much higher success rate if there is no force at home since a tag would have to be applied.

 

Just an overall horrible decision from Lou from sending Fontenot up there to calling for the squeeze.

[Soonernation]

Cause Fox is a righty with a righty pitcher on the mound; you know how all these managers get so wrapped up in that crap :-))

[17 Seconds]

if the cubs miss the playoffs hopefully they just tank so lou will hang it up. he is atrocious.

 

excellent bullpen management again tonight, lou