*** The quest for .500! Kansas City Royals @ Cleveland Indians 6/17 ***

[mr. tegu]

The pitching match up favors us big time.

Shields, 2-6, 2.79 ERA vs Carasco, 0-2, 15.26 ERA

Also, if you are out of the viewing area, this is the MLB.TV free game of the day. You will just need to sign up for a free account to watch. http://mlb.mlb.com/mediacenter/index.jsp?c_id=mlb

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Cain should have been running with the pitch. He would have scored easily. If you get the bunt down, a suicide squeeze is nearly 100% effective.

There is a reason you don't see that many suicide squeezes.....

Oh well, it doesn't matter now but I still would have opted for the Sac Fly

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Cain should have been running with the pitch. He would have scored easily. If you get the bunt down, a suicide squeeze is nearly 100% effective.

The squeeze is stupid there because essentially anything other than an infield pop up scores a run there. The chances of getting a double play on Escobar are slim so assuming he does nothing but hit a ground ball we still have a great shot at scoring because they wouldn't be throwing home.

[Hootie]

does a strikeout score a run there?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by unnecessary drama

does a strikeout score a run there?

Escobar has 1 strikeout in his last 7 games (27 ABs) and 2 in his last 11 (41 ABs). If the bunt was in any way done to prevent the possibility of a strikeout it was stupid and simply wrong.

The chances of him striking out were virtually zero, especially given the fact that they would be hesitant to throw pitches in the dirt since the catcher was having difficulty blocking them.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The squeeze is stupid there because essentially anything other than an infield pop up scores a run there. The chances of getting a double play on Escobar are slim so assuming he does nothing but hit a ground ball we still have a great shot at scoring because they wouldn't be throwing home.

Strikeout...doesn't score a run

Popup...doesn't score a run

DP ball...doesn't score a run

Ground ball to first or third...doesn't score a run

A fly ball or hit scores a run. I don't like squeeze plays much, but Yost called it and Escobar executed it. The fact that Cain...while standing next to his base coach...blew the signal shouldn't be held against the decision.

BTW, where is everyone crediting Yost? He managed a hell of a game. The staff was handled to perfection (4 pitchers combining to allow one run). Pinch-running for Butler won the game. The sacrifice bunt was perfection. Even pinch hitting with Tejada was the right move even though he got unlucky.

We stole that game, and Yost deserves a lot of credit.

[Mama Hip Rockets]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Strikeout...doesn't score a run

Popup...doesn't score a run

DP ball...doesn't score a run

Ground ball to first or third...doesn't score a run

A fly ball or hit scores a run. I don't like squeeze plays much, but Yost called it and Escobar executed it. The fact that Cain...while standing next to his base coach...blew the signal shouldn't be held against the decision.

BTW, where is everyone crediting Yost? He managed a hell of a game. The staff was handled to perfection (4 pitchers combining to allow one run). Pinch-running for Butler won the game. The sacrifice bunt was perfection. Even pinch hitting with Tejada was the right move even though he got unlucky.

We stole that game, and Yost deserves a lot of credit.

What? Yost? Credit? We will never fall for that.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Strikeout...doesn't score a run see above
Popup...doesn't score a run I said that already.
DP ball...doesn't score a run likely wrong because doubling up Escobar is very difficult.
Ground ball to first or third...doesn't score a run they would have gone for the double play and likely not gotten it.

A fly ball or hit scores a run. I don't like squeeze plays much, but Yost called it and Escobar executed it. The fact that Cain...while standing next to his base coach...blew the signal shouldn't be held against the decision.

BTW, where is everyone crediting Yost? He managed a hell of a game. The staff was handled to perfection (4 pitchers combining to allow one run). Pinch-running for Butler won the game. The sacrifice bunt was perfection. Even pinch hitting with Tejada was the right move even though he got unlucky.

We stole that game, and Yost deserves a lot of credit.

The squeeze lets the Indians off the hook. The infielders are already playing in so you have no advantage. Your advantage is to swing away. Taking away the sacrifice fly potential is dumb. Additionally with the infield in, a ground ball double play is that much more unlikely because it would have to be hit sharply right at someone in order to get Escobar.

Yost handled the bullpen well but the squeeze is stupid. We had no advantage over the defense for the squeeze to work. Can you think of one? It was a force out and the infield was in already so even if they were suprised it was an easy adjustment.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The squeeze lets the Indians off the hook. The infielders are already playing in so you have no advantage. Your advantage is to swing away. Taking away the sacrifice fly potential is dumb. Additionally with the infield in, a ground ball double play is that much more unlikely because it would have to be hit sharply right at someone in order to get Escobar.

Yost handled the bullpen well but the squeeze is stupid. We had no advantage over the defense for the squeeze to work. Can you think of one? It was a force out and the infield was in already so even if they were suprised it was an easy adjustment.

You are completely wrong here...to the point where you contradict yourself within your post.

You acknowledge that they were playing in at the corners but then say they would try to turn a DP on a ball hit to first or third. That makes no sense. Why do you think they were playing in at the corners rather than at DP depth if they weren't coming home with it? You've acknowledged that playing in at the corners puts the defense at a disadvantage. Were they just trying to be nice?

I don't love the ball, but it worked. It's not Yost's fault that Cain didn't run.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You are completely wrong here...to the point where you contradict yourself within your post.

You acknowledge that they were playing in at the corners but then say they would try to turn a DP on a ball hit to first or third. That makes no sense. Why do you think they were playing in at the corners rather than at DP depth if they weren't coming home with it? You've acknowledged that playing in at the corners puts the defense at a disadvantage. Were they just trying to be nice?

I don't love the ball, but it worked. It's not Yost's fault that Cain didn't run.

I never said playing the corner infielders in puts them at a disadvantage. But what I said is it does take away any potential advantage we had for a bunt. My guess would be that by playing in they protect from a potential bunt but also, it would give them a better chance at a double play because the ball gets to the defensive corners faster. As I recall 2B and SS were still playing back and therefore hoping for a double play. We see that all the time where the defense ignores the out at home and attempts to get out of the inning.

I fail to see how it worked. Even if Cain is sprinting home at first movement he is easily out.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I never said playing the corner infielders in puts them at a disadvantage. But what I said is it does take away any potential advantage we had for a bunt. My guess would be that by playing in they protect from a potential bunt but also, it would give them a better chance at a double play because the ball gets to the defensive corners faster. As I recall 2B and SS were still playing back and therefore hoping for a double play. We see that all the time where the defense ignores the out at home and attempts to get out of the inning.

I fail to see how it worked. Even if Cain is sprinting home at first movement he is easily out.

Sorry, dude. You don't understand how a suicide squeeze works, and you don't understand how setting up fielders for a double play works.

[gblowfish]

Why are you guys still arguing about this? Cain missed the sign, Esky laid down a bad bunt. Esky probably would have done better given a chance to swing away, probably would have got a sac fly or base hit, or maybe drawn a walk or another wild pitch. We won. Move on.

[Saul Good]

A suicide squeeze doesn't mean that the runner breaks for home as soon as the bunt is down. It means that the runner breaks with the pitch and essentially tries to steal home. If the batter gets the bunt down, there is nothing the defense can do. Cain would have scored without a throw.

[Ceej]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Why are you guys still arguing about this? Cain missed the sign, Esky laid down a bad bunt. Esky probably would have done better given a chance to swing away, probably would have got a sac fly or base hit, or maybe drawn a walk or another wild pitch. We won. Move on.

People just arguing to argue.

Oh, BTW, Mizzou sucks.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Why are you guys still arguing about this? Cain missed the sign, Esky laid down a bad bunt. Esky probably would have done better given a chance to swing away, probably would have got a sac fly or base hit, or maybe drawn a walk or another wild pitch. We won. Move on.

There was nothing wrong with his bunt. Short of whiffing or popping up, there is no such thing as a bad bunt on a suicide squeeze.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

A suicide squeeze doesn't mean that the runner breaks for home as soon as the bunt is down. It means that the runner breaks with the pitch and essentially tries to steal home. If the batter gets the bunt down, there is nothing the defense can do. Cain would have scored without a throw.

Especially considering Cain's speed.