- NEWS
- Navy hiring 1,500 for civilian jobs 1 hour & 36 minutes ago
- How $3 million gets you home on sand 1 hour & 42 minutes ago
- Fresh-mex eatery giving away free taquitos 1 hour & 40 minutes ago
- Crib Envy: Old Spanish home is tricked out 1 hour & 34 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Stop the insanity: No more second-guessing ‘the squeeze’
January 6th, 2009, 7:27 am · 19 Comments · posted by Earl Bloom, staff writer
Manager Mike Scioscia’s well-deserved extension from the Angels is cause for this reporter to once again haul out the proverbial soapbox and climb aboard.
I think extending Scioscia to 2014 and beyond is the best move the Angels can make, and a close second will be that John Lackey contract extension. Any day now …
But the real purpose of this lecture is to address those misinformed who still bring up Erick Aybar’s missed suicide squeeze bunt in the ninth inning against Boston in the division series Game 4 that ended the Angels’ 2008 season. The Angels didn’t extend their fine manager DESPITE that call. It had nothing to do with it.
There was nothing wrong with Scioscia’s strategy. Anyone who has ever played or coached the game at a reasonably advanced level knows that. It was simply a failure of execution.
A missed squeeze by a professional player — and Aybar is a good bunter, too — is the same thing as a hanging slider that is driven out of the park. The ball is out of the manager’s hands. It’s up to the player to execute. Throw the ball, catch the ball, bunt the ball. Players have to do those things. Managers and coaches can’t do it for them.
What do I mean by having played and/or coached at a reasonably advanced level?
Let’s say a league where runners actually take leads off bases, and pitchers have to pitch from a stretch with men on, with say 90-foot bases.
Pitchers also actually throw breaking pitches not gravity balls, and catchers have to catch third strikes.
That’s real baseball, and it’s a heckuva lot different than slow-pitch softball, T-ball or even Little League majors.
If you had beer in your dugout in your last league game, or your team had a team mom in the dugout to make sure nobody acted up, and sat in the batting order, you probably have the wrong perspective.
I’m just guessing but I believe I am on pretty solid ground in believing those misguided Scioscia second-guessers never had to wear a protective cup beyond age 12.
Blaming Scioscia for the failed squeeze play is like blaming Red Sox manager John McNamara for the Mookie Wilson grounder that went through Bill Buckner’s legs in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, the error that led to the Mets winning the series in seven.
Oh yeah, Johnny Mac could’ve put a better defender in, yada yada yada … but it was a routine play.
For one time out of a hundred, maybe many more, Buckner didn’t get his glove down far enough — as you are taught to do from age 5 on. But sometimes humans, being what we are, forget. That’s why we won’t watch robots play.
Aybar bunted through a tough pitch to bunt, but on a squeeze, contact MUST be made. That is stressed from the moment you start playing hardball — unless perhaps you played in some swing-from-the-heels, nonaggressive program that always played for the big inning. Yeah I know those exist.
But that’s not the program Scioscia runs. His is aggressive, all-out, challenging the defense. Those first-to-third jaunts the Angels are famous for, those are much harder to coach than a squeeze bunt, because even some great athletes don’t read the ball off the bat well.
In the early ’90s, the Angels’ Brian Downing was in his 40s and wasn’t the quickest to begin with. But he was amazing with his ability to go first to third because he could read the ball — and he was a hardball player willing to take the risk.
Anybody can call for a squeeze with a three-run lead. To do it in a tied game … now that’s something. But knowing how aggressive Scioscia is, I was almost surprised Terry Francona didn’t pitch out.
Please excuse this verbal assault on your senses. I wasn’t blogging when the bunt was missed. But hearing about it again, in the context of Scioscia’s extension, got the better of me.
I realize this might be too much information, and some of the second-guessers wouldn’t buy my arguments if the Angels trotted out their entire franchise alumni to deliver Scioscia testimonials.
But if you really don’t understand what the man is doing, don’t criticize it. Just enjoy the ride during your team’s annual 90-victory seasons. Sometimes, they might even win a hundred.
Related posts:
- Meet the Angels on opening day - so far
- Scioscia gets contract extension
- Angels’ resolutions for 2009
- Angels re-sign a big name: Scioscia
- Does Brian Fuentes really save kitties from trees?
- Angels “lurking” for Lowe?
- Who’s left? Angels seem unbalanced
- Andruw Jones math: It’s still a disaster no matter how Dodgers pay it
- Reviewing Fuentes’ deal
- Did anybody see the MLB Network debut?
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Amen.
I also was happy to hear Scioscia get a contract extention. He’s been the best Manager this team has ever had. I think the missed bunt will be long remembered because we have failed to get past the 1st round now for several years and the fans are getting frustrated.
I certainly defend Scioscia & Co. than most people on the Internet, but even I thought it was the wrong call.
It just wasn’t necessary. There was one out with the speedy Reggie Willits on third. The objective was to score him. There are plenty other ways to do that other than a squeeze bunt.
Aybar is a pretty good contact hitter. In 2008, he struck out at a rate of once every 7.7 at-bats. If he puts the ball in play, odds are Willits scores unless Aybar hits the ball right at someone. Even if Aybar made out and Willits didn’t score, the Angels still would have had one out left to drive in Willits.
That’s the issue. It’s not that Aybar failed to bunt. It’s that it was an unnecessary risk.
Thank you for some perspective, Stephen. And can we please, please, PLEASE stop with the “ne ne ne ne! You never played baseball so you don’t know! la la la, I can’t hear you!” stuff? I understand that those who actually played the game will have a better perspective on certain aspects than us arm chair analysts. At the same time, those ex-players, whether they last played in high school, college, or some independent league somewhere, also seem to use their playing days as a crutch for their arguments, rather than, you know, logic. This goes for ex MLBers, too. Just watch ESPN or the new MLB channel; some of them have some great insight to the nuances of the game, while others just sound like big kids who have no clue as to what is even going on around them.
I remember sitting in my living room watching that fateful at bat with Aybar, and telling my friend “Hes gonna squeeze, I just know it.” How did I know it? I haven’t played serious ball since little league (and no, I don’t count beer league softball, either). I knew because I watch the game all the time, and have for the last 15 years or so, and specifically Angel baseball. I know Mike and his style, so I really wasn’t going out on a limb by predicting that. The situation just screamed for it. And that’s the problem: the Sox looked like they were expecting it, too.
But that’s all in the past, and if Aybar gets it down and Willits scores we’re all talking about what a great manager he is for making such a gutsy call in that situation. Which is why I love Scioscia. He is always willing to go against baseball convention and find ways to win. It doesn’t always work out, but it does work more than not, and his track record is proof.
But what do I know? I only watch the game.
Earl:
I agree with your basic point. Scioscia’s squeeze call was simply a managerial move, one of several made in every game and thousands made during a ML season. To be honest, I applauded that particular call. I love the high-risk, high-reward move, and I love that Scioscia (Lasorda’s protoge, regardless of any bad blood) is the type of manager who makes that call.
But I’m baffled by the suggestion that second guessing is a bad thing. Or that it’s the right of any particular category of fan and/or baseball player.
I played ball long enough to get cut from a crummy four-year college baseball program (SF State). I learned exactly one thing - I have zero idea what major league baseball is like on the field or in the dugout. Big leaguers are good enough that, simply put, the game they play is a bit different than the one I played.
That said, I can second-guess. So can my mother-in-law, who (please, God, let me be right about this) didn’t wear a cup past age 12.
Second-guessing - even the lame variety - is passion. And passion is the only reason baseball players get so much money. It’s also why sports pages/blogs/etc. get read.
Is there no easier way to score a run in baseball than a leadoff double, a sacrifice bunt, and an RBI groundout/sacrifice fly?
Even if it fails, Chone Figgins is up to bat with a runner on third.
[...] when mainstream media differentiated itself on the merits of the ever-elusive “access?” No more it seems; wait, Earl, where did you [...]
Brett: The infield was in. I am assuming you have Willits coming home on contact. That’s nearly the same thing as a squeeze, especially against a solid defensive infield like Boston’s. As for a sacrifice fly, Aybar had one in 375 plate appearances last season.
Earl, are you really “trolling” blogs for your topics or does it just seem that way? If you are, you probably owe a link or two.
Strange that the blogs cite sources but you don’t.
Can you say paradigm shift?
As for a sacrifice fly, Aybar had one in 375 plate appearances last season.
Which is completely meaningless, unless you tell us how many opportunities he had. I’ll do it for you. Per baseball reference, he came up with runner on third and less than two out exactly 19 times. Never once was he asked to bunt. And you’re right, only once did he get the runner home via sac fly.
Unfortunately, what you leave out is that 14 of the other 18 chances, the runner still scored from third (1x each by SF, error, and HBP; 3x via ground-out/FC; 9x via base hit). The other four times consisted of two strike outs (both with the bases loaded) and two times when the runner was cut off at the plate. So over the course of the season, he got the runner home from third with less than two outs without bunting almost 80% of the time.
That said, I had no problem with the decision to squeeze before the first pitch was thrown. But when the first pitch came high and tight, it was pretty clear that the Red Sox were looking for the squeeze, and he probably wasn’t going to see a pitch in strike zone in the first two or three pitches. After the first pitch, Scioscia should have given him the take sign until the Sox showed a willingness to throw one near the strike zone. Once he had taken a strike, I would have agreed with putting the squeeze back on. I thought the Sox actually did the Angels a favor with that first pitch, because they tipped their hand. I’m not sure why Scioscia didn’t accept the gift. I don’t so much question the concept of the squeeze there as the timing of still calling for it on the second pitch.
And for the record, I’m not sure how age at which I stopped playing baseball is relevant to any of this.
<iNever once was he asked to bunt.
I should clarify this. Per the play by play data, never once did he actually get a bunt down in this situation. He may have been asked to bunt, failed to get it down, and got a hit, etc., anyway, but I think that probably strengthens my point.
I have argued the squeeze call not because of the call (loved it) but because of the timing of it. The whole world knows Scioscia likes the squeeze. What was going on with Aybar to no surprise was with 1B open and a man on 3rd with one out was the old unintentional intentional walk ( setting up a DP if he wanted and giving no pitch to hit a fly or put inplay with authority). That is don’t give him anything to hit, which they didn’t. Very hard to get a bunt down on the fastball high and tight or off the shoe tops. Scioscia put the light on with the traditional 2-0 “hitters count” that didn’t exist in this situation as the give nothing to hit was logically in play. He should have seen a strike first. That is a fair and legitimate question of the situation.
Also, Earl, Scioscia as is his style routinely if not always sends the runner on third home on contact. That is not a reach. The debate is healthy and appropriate as it is at the very enjoyment of such a strategic game. It is done as suggested out of passion and love of the game. No one here thinks less of Scioscia for it.
If you want to go back, I thought Mauch should have left Mike WItt in the game AT THE TIME. THe HR was a mistake not fatigue of Witt. However today Witt would not have started the inning at all and Mauch made a good call that didn’t work. The game is full of those game changing decisions where there are many choices. Isn’t it great to discussit or better yet learn from discussing it?
Thanks
I’m not sure how age at which I stopped playing baseball is relevant to any of this.
Sorry. Me no speak or write good.
Dear Halocidal: Thanks for bringing sciencespeak into a rant about baseball strategy. Maybe I should reference Sun Tzu’s Art of War on my next one.
Trolls generally don’t use their real names. I guess Halocidal is yours. Hmmm …
As for topics, try clicking on the boldface words in my posts. Not many in this one I admit … it’s strictly an opinion piece based on my 20 years covering major league baseball and 35 years coaching baseball including at the high school and adult levels. The Vladdy-Manny piece is also an opinion piece based on my observations and experience. Feel free to share yours.
But try my other Angels or NBA posts, there are plenty of links. Most of my sports news posts, I am blogging. Finding an article, linking to it, adding an opinion or spin or attempt at humor as I see fit. Sorry you haven’t noticed. Can you say “new concept?”
Just a note to most of those commenting. Great points for the most part. I have nothing against second guessing. I have a problem with folks demanding an excellent manager be fired for a decision they didn’t agree with or understand, or for making a strategy that didn’t work a consideration for his contract extension. … For the record, the three best counts to squeeze are 2-0, 3-0 and 3-2 (no one will pitch out then) … but nobody at the major league level does it on the last two. … and I seriously doubt the Red Sox were “pitching around” Aybar to get to Figgins. If so, that last pitch was way too close. Regardless, as long as it isn’t bounced or thrown over your head, you have to make contact on a squeeze.
But Earl, you do have something against ‘mis-guided second-guessers’ who likely did not ‘ wear a protective cup after the age of 12.’ I think it’s surprising that a journalist would rail so emotionally against democratic fair comment. Of the 40 thousand paying folks for a typical home Angels game on a given night, are only those who ‘played the game’ allowed to have a credible opinion? Why don’t you criticize DiGiovanna at LAT, who keeps bringing it up, if it so steams you? No guts? Meanwhile, no one is asking Scioscia to be fired; as Stephen points out, it’s the timing of the call. And it gets to an interesting point about Scioscia’s whole-season approach to managing, versus the short-term playoff decision-making.
Earl, I wasn’t referring to any of your other posts, just this one (and it lacks contextual links).
“Adult Leagues?” C’mon now Earl, is that the “advanced level” to which you’re referring?
I’ve got no problem with the suicide squeeze, by the way. What I have a problem with is you patronizing your readers. It obviously burns you and Whicker up that you’ve got to be down here in the mud with us regular folk.
Incidentally, for a guy with “20 years” experience covering MLB and “35 years” coaching baseball, it seems odd that you haven’t left a mark in either field. Jack of all trades, huh?
With all due respect Earl, I did not suggest the Sox might have been pitching around Aybar to get to Figgins, but rather were putting on a runner to set up a double play perhaps while not giving anything to make decent contact. Considering not much was around the plate I think it appears quite possible that a strike was no where in their plans. It was a tough pitch to put wood on. Count being conventional or not isn’t at issue with my theory.
Appreciate the clarification. I think we see that differently. However I hope the Angels make Scioscia a fixture. I like Stability with coaches and leaders and Scioscia is a great manager.
Meant to say i am glad they made Scioscia a fixture…it’s late…sorry