A squeeze bunt !!!!!11!!!!one!!!

[PANatsFan]

First Evar?

[hammondsnats]

i loved when dibs ripped gonzalez like 5 innings later in the game.  it was so true and so funny. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Help  me out here.  We get a leadoff double, give away two outs when we had a 3 run lead, then get a homer.  I can see the pitcher bunting, maybe, because it's the pitcher and the NL, even though the runner is in scoring position already.  But giving away 2 outs before the Guz - Zimmerman - Dunn - Willingham stretch of the order?  Am I the only one who thinks we bunted our way out of a big inning?  I turned on the radio right after the homer.  Did anyone say anything about whether that was a good play?

Thank goodness I can go back to watching station to station baseball tonight.

[NatsDad14]

Help  me out here.  We get a leadoff double, give away two outs when we had a 3 run lead, then get a homer.  I can see the pitcher bunting, maybe, because it's the pitcher and the NL, even though the runner is in scoring position already.  But giving away 2 outs before the Guz - Zimmerman - Dunn - Willingham stretch of the order?  Am I the only one who thinks we bunted our way out of a big inning?  I turned on the radio right after the homer.  Did anyone say anything about whether that was a good play?

Thank goodness I can go back to watching station to station baseball tonight.

Bunting is usually bad, but I don't think a successful Squeeze play is all that bad. No would say that we took ourself out of a big inning if we had a Sacrifice fly or a groundout RBI.

[Roarin Storen]

I think this actually saying "one" with the 1!111!!!! can actually catch on if we push hard enough. I've been doing it for about a week (I think I did it in a facebook status). LETS DO IT!

[tomterp]

Help  me out here.  We get a leadoff double, give away two outs when we had a 3 run lead, then get a homer.  I can see the pitcher bunting, maybe, because it's the pitcher and the NL, even though the runner is in scoring position already.  But giving away 2 outs before the Guz - Zimmerman - Dunn - Willingham stretch of the order?  Am I the only one who thinks we bunted our way out of a big inning?  I turned on the radio right after the homer.  Did anyone say anything about whether that was a good play?

Well of course, most broadcasters, former players, baseball traditionalists and fans alike believe that giving up outs to attempt to score a run is solid, fundamentally sound baseball, and don't try to use facts to dispute this assertion.

[NatsDad14]

Well of course, most broadcasters, former players, baseball traditionalists and fans alike believe that giving up outs to attempt to score a run is solid, fundamentally sound baseball, and don't try to use facts to dispute this assertion.

I think the difference is that a sacrifice bunt with a guy on 1st is bad, but a suicide squeeze is a good play because it is a guaranteed run (assuming you execute).

[houston-nat]

I think this actually saying "one" with the 1!111!!!! can actually catch on if we push hard enough. I've been doing it for about a week (I think I did it in a facebook status). LETS DO IT!

I did it a few years ago.

[Roarin Storen]

I did it a few years ago.

I did it at birth but no one noticed.

[PANatsFan]

I think the difference is that a sacrifice bunt with a guy on 1st is bad, but a suicide squeeze is a good play because it is a guaranteed run (assuming you execute).

Bingo. Manny missed a ton of chances. Dumbass.

The !11one thing always cracks me up.

[Kevrock]

Statistically, I believe that sacrificing the outs costs you more runs than it gets you over the course of the season.

But sacrifice bunts aren't "bad". The goal is to get a run, and sometimes the risk pays off. Sometimes it doesn't.

[PANatsFan]

The point of the squeeze play is that you get a free run. It's not as risky. Manny should have run the play a million times, and failed. Riggleman

[KnorrForYourMoney]

The point of the squeeze play is that you get a free run. It's not as risky. Manny should have run the play a million times, and failed. Riggleman

It's actually fairly risky, but it helps if you're running it with a competent player.

[PANatsFan]

It's actually fairly risky, but it helps if you're running it with a competent player.

Ok, but not as risky as a sac bunt!

And you are trading a chance at an out for a run, not a base advancement.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Statistically, I believe that sacrificing the outs costs you more runs than it gets you over the course of the season.

But sacrifice bunts aren't "bad". The goal is to get a run, and sometimes the risk pays off. Sometimes it doesn't.

It's all situational.  The problem with Manny Acta, and conversely all of the "old school" guys, is that they tend to take it to either extreme.

We saw Manny miss opportunities to bunt when it was advantageous, and you'll see all sorts of managers waste outs with bunts.  You should bunt when it's a good time.  If you have a garbage hitter with good speed and competent bunting skills, you should bunt with men on.  If you have a really great hitter on a hot streak, hold off on it, perhaps even if you have 1st and 2nd with nobody out.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Ok, but not as risky as a sac bunt!

And you are trading a chance at an out for a run, not a base advancement.

I would actually argue that it's riskier!  The runner is in closer proximity to the end point of the baseball (usually) than one who is running from first to second.  A throw-out requires heaving the ball a much shorter distance.

The advantage is in the reward vs. the risk.  The reward is much greater.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

It also has to do with when you do it in a game.  I like the squeeze play if it is close and late, especially if you have a weak hitter who is a good bunter.  But other than Nyjer being a good bunter, none of my "criteria" were in play.  The previous two nights, the Brewers had put up a ton of run.  This did not have the make up of a low scoring game where playing for one run was likely to make the difference.  If this was the 8th, and it was tied or one behind, I would have been screaming for a squeeze play.  But here, it looked like we might have their starter on the ropes, the games had been big scoring, it was early, and we had our best hitters coming up.  Plus, Nyjer is one of our better hitters.

I think in the post game presser Riggleman was asked about and basically he implied Nyjer did it on his own.  I was channel surfing a bit and only caught the end of Riggleman's answer. Am I imagining this?

[natsfan4evr]

It also has to do with when you do it in a game.  I like the squeeze play if it is close and late, especially if you have a weak hitter who is a good bunter.  But other than Nyjer being a good bunter, none of my "criteria" were in play.  The previous two nights, the Brewers had put up a ton of run.  This did not have the make up of a low scoring game where playing for one run was likely to make the difference.  If this was the 8th, and it was tied or one behind, I would have been screaming for a squeeze play.  But here, it looked like we might have their starter on the ropes, the games had been big scoring, it was early, and we had our best hitters coming up.  Plus, Nyjer is one of our better hitters.

I think in the post game presser Riggleman was asked about and basically he implied Nyjer did it on his own.  I was channel surfing a bit and only caught the end of Riggleman's answer. Am I imagining this?

That's impossible. How would Morse know to go down the line that much? It was obviously planned in advance. I don't think it's possible to choose to do a suicide squeeze yourself.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

That's impossible. How would Morse know to go down the line that much? It was obviously planned in advance. I don't think it's possible to choose to do a suicide squeeze yourself.

You are right.  My bad.

[DPMOmaha]

the squeeze play, especially the suicide squeeze is one of those "take the wind out of your sails" type of plays.  It is certainly a gamble, but when it's pulled off, it can really deflate the other team.  There's no way of knowing Zim or Dunn or whomever will hit a home run behind Nyjer.  At the time it was just 3-0 and every run really helped and Nyjer's fast enough he could very well beat it out too.  It's not a play you try often, but in spots it can work and in this case, I think it was a good call.  A fast runner, a good bunter and a bit of a cushion.  The play in Cinci was just poorly concieved.

[shoeshineboy]

the squeeze play, especially the suicide squeeze is one of those "take the wind out of your sails" type of plays.  It is certainly a gamble, but when it's pulled off, it can really deflate the other team.  There's no way of knowing Zim or Dunn or whomever will hit a home run behind Nyjer.  At the time it was just 3-0 and every run really helped and Nyjer's fast enough he could very well beat it out too.  It's not a play you try often, but in spots it can work and in this case, I think it was a good call.  A fast runner, a good bunter and a bit of a cushion.  The play in Cinci was just poorly concieved.

I'm not a fan of the sac bunt in general, particularly earlier in a game (pitchers being the primary exception, but even then, I think it is often overused.) This was not a sac bunt, as Nyger pulled a drag bunt that has been as effective as getting him on base as anything. Even though this it is a gamble, a lot depends on the situation. Up 3-0 early with Morse on 3rd, the goal certainly was to do whatever it took to plate the runner. Sure, you love to get on base, but if the opportunity came to drive a fly ball that would at least produce a sac fly for the run, you take it. This wasn't just giving away an out to move a guy over, it was a way to plate the runner. With Nyger at the plate, you know you have a batter that is more likely to hit a grounder in the infield or a shallow flyout. He's not a power guy. He is, however a great drag bunters. So he had a good chance at pulling this off. This was really a combination of things all at once - a decent lead, a run on 3rd they wanted to plate, with a light-hitting batter at the plate who not only is a great bunter, but could potentially bunt for a hit to boot. This team has struggled alot to plate runners from third with less than two outs. Asking Morgan to do what he does best to bring the runner home under that circumstance, was a decent gamble. It should be a rare play. But this is was the rare opportunity you consider it.

[cmdterps44]

I got really excited watching that play. I don't know why it was but it just looked so well executed that it made it look like we have a winning team.

[Evolution33]

It also has to do with when you do it in a game.  I like the squeeze play if it is close and late, especially if you have a weak hitter who is a good bunter.  But other than Nyjer being a good bunter, none of my "criteria" were in play.  The previous two nights, the Brewers had put up a ton of run.  This did not have the make up of a low scoring game where playing for one run was likely to make the difference.  If this was the 8th, and it was tied or one behind, I would have been screaming for a squeeze play.  But here, it looked like we might have their starter on the ropes, the games had been big scoring, it was early, and we had our best hitters coming up.  Plus, Nyjer is one of our better hitters.

I think in the post game presser Riggleman was asked about and basically he implied Nyjer did it on his own.  I was channel surfing a bit and only caught the end of Riggleman's answer. Am I imagining this?

I think this sums up the failing of Manny right here. Sometimes a manager needs to look conventional wisdom right in the face and take a big dump on it. Statistically it may never be right to sacrifice and out for a run, but when your job as a manager is to get the team going and give them some confidence then a well exicuted play that leads to a run is most often worth it. The one thing you have to remember about the run probability stats is that it is for all teams with all player throughout all time. The actual chances for a certian team with certian players are going to change. It is the job of the manager to adjust for the overall statistics and know his players, the game situation, the mental state of his players, and how the team has been playing lately. Manny only ever factored in the overall statistics. He was basically a human number generator.

[PANatsFan]

Mike Rizzo is a by-the-numbers GM and it is working out beautifully. Riggleman actually injects passion into the game - and turned around that game the other night.

[blue911]

Why have Stammen bunt in the first place? I would have let him swing away. Chances are he is going to make contact (10 K's in 35PA's) and hit the ball to the right side. With Fielder charging down the line, why not let him have his hacks?