But they put on a suicide squeeze

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    I guess that I am misinformed , but it was always my understanding that the player is supposed to have a signal to the coach that he did receive the sign on a critical play like that.  I guess I was wrong , but I do feel that there should be a system in place to avoid that sort of goof up.  Probably cost us the game. 
    Posted by dgalehouse
    DGH, no, i think you are correct about that, i've also heard that there is an acknowledgement sign given by the batter,i'm thinking, what happens like in Scutaro's case where you do miss, is there something in place to relay a miss?.. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    I think , if the coach does not get the acknowlegement from the player that he did receive the sign for the squeeze play, then he should call time out before the play happens.  Of course , you don't want to make it obvious to the opponent what you are planning, but anything would be better than allowing the play to go forward like that.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze : DGH, no, i think you are correct about that, i've also heard that there is an acknowledgement sign given by the batter,i'm thinking, what happens like in Scutaro's case where you do miss, is there something in place to relay a miss?.. 
    Posted by jete02fan


    But if you miss a sign then you didn't see the sign, so you don't know to give the sign that you missed the sign.

    ........ sign
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze : It's a steal from a Bostonian (and leader of the transcendental movement), Ralph Waldo Emerson, who actually said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."  You are welcome to it. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    Yes, the nod to Emerson is what makes it good.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PetesCall. Show PetesCall's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    I suspect Francoma messed up the signal. After all, no-one has bunted since 2004!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze : But if you miss a sign then you didn't see the sign, so you don't know to give the sign that you missed the sign. ........ sign
    Posted by JB-3
    LOL...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    Exactly.  Of course, the criticism is that Francona failed to call time out and personally brief both Scutaro and Reddick about what he wanted to do.  That he would also have telegraphed the squeeze to the Royals is irrelevant.  Georom, bosox1941, and a few others have two simple rules.  1.  Every failure or mistake is the manager's fault and his alone.  2. When in doubt about what happened, refer to rule #1. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    Failed squeeze is  not on Francona. Reddick got the sign, Scutaro didn't. I was very surprised that Terry (Tito is his father) actually tried it. Even if Scut got it down, and they got Reddick at home, it was still a good try by Terry.  I truly wished that it worked, because then we might see Terry try to win more close games, instead of hoping the hitters come through while he practices his distance spitting. Now it's entirely possible that the sign went to the 3rd base coach, and he told Reddick, but didn't give the sign to Scut. It's not like he'd win a baseball knowledge contest with Francona......welllll maybe he would.
    Possibly When Scutaro saw the sign, he thought that Francona didn't call for the squeeze and that the coach made a mistake. He should have verified the sign, but based on past history, he was sure Francona didn't call for a squeeze and so he didn't verify it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    Well, I'm not placing the blame on anyone in particular.  I just feel that there should be a fail safe system in place for that play.  In addition to losing the run, it is very dangerous to the runner coming down the line , should the batter swing away.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
     They so rarely play any "little ball" that it shouldn't come as a surprise that they botched this one.
    Posted by trouts

    That's the truth, do they even practice this stuff?  Parenthetically, with speedy and/or excellent baserunners like Crawford Pedroia Reddick & Ells in the line-up, they should run more, do some double-steals, put some pressure on the defense, especially with dp prone guys like Ortiz & Gonzo in the middle of the line-up.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze : Failed squeeze is  not on Francona. Reddick got the sign, Scutaro didn't. I was very surprised that Terry (Tito is his father) actually tried it. Even if Scut got it down, and they got Reddick at home, it was still a good try by Terry.   I truly wished that it worked, because then we might see Terry try to win more close games, instead of hoping the hitters come through while he practices his distance spitting. Now it's entirely possible that the sign went to the 3rd base coach, and he told Reddick, but didn't give the sign to Scut. It's not like he'd win a baseball knowledge contest with Francona......welllll maybe he would. Possibly When Scutaro saw the sign, he thought that Francona didn't call for the squeeze and that the coach made a mistake. He should have verified the sign, but based on past history, he was sure Francona didn't call for a squeeze and so he didn't verify it.
    Posted by BOSOX1941


    Reddick got the signal, Scutaro didn't.  Hard to blame Francona for that.

    Surely you are aware that, despite a so-so pitching staff, the Sox have the best record in the AL and the second best record in MLB because of a terrific offense.  Most would argue that it's because Francona knows how to set the offense up for success--to say nothing of managing his way though a plethora of starting pitchers (nine to date:  Dice-K, Lackey, Wakefield, Miller, Weiland, Aceves, Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz) and up and down relievers.  You want him to bunt all the time when what works for this team is hitting the ball.  And you want him to change pitchers only when 20-20 hindsight tells you that a change was needed or not needed. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from odessagolfer. Show odessagolfer's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    There are not too many things that can go wrong with a squeeze play, but not getting the sign is a big one.  Obviously had Scutaro gotten the sign and I have always been a proponent of acknowledging the receipt of a sign, he would not have tried so hard to avoid getting hit by the pitch. 

    The Royals pitcher did exactly what he was supposed to do.  Pitchers are taught to throw at the batter if they see someone break for the plate.  Now, had the sign been picked up, the outcome had 2 other options.

    1.  Scutaro gets his bat on the ball and it's fair or foul, but he is still at bat.
    2.  He tries to bunt and because he is planted there to bunt it, it's likely he gets hit.  That way, Reddick goes back to 3rd and we have another baserunner.

    Unfortunately for Marco, he then proceeds to rip one off the wall, which would of course allowed Reddick to crawl home and the game is over.  Being irritated that he missed the sign made him try to stretch it into a double and was out by 10 feet.

    As bad as this series of events were, there were at least 4 other opportunities to win this game and imho, the batters all failed miserably.

    I have been thrilled with how CC has played over the past 6 games, but when he was hitting an inning earlier with a runner on third he was just pitiful.  He did not swing at one strike, yet he struck out, even if the 3rd strike was a crappy call.  He looked so over anxious that he had no chance to even put the ball in play.  That was the win.  He likely would have walked and Reddick then hit it to the track, again, game over, Sox win.

    I was very impressed with the Royals pitching and they had some relievers that had really unusual deliveries that for seeing the first time, I was suprised that the Sox even made contact. 

    I just hate losing games when you have so many chances to win.  That's quite different that being outplayed or over-matched.  We lost a game that should have kept the lead at 3 games. 

    Different story tonite.  I predict that the team hits again and we add another game with 10 runs to the already impressive record of huge wins.  Miller has been a nice, albeit inconsistent addition.  If the weather holds, I predict a nice 6 inning performance and another solid BP group for the Sox.

    Just my thoughts.



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze

    In Response to Re: But they put on a suicide squeeze:
    There are not too many things that can go wrong with a squeeze play, but not getting the sign is a big one.  Obviously had Scutaro gotten the sign and I have always been a proponent of acknowledging the receipt of a sign, he would not have tried so hard to avoid getting hit by the pitch.  The Royals pitcher did exactly what he was supposed to do.  Pitchers are taught to throw at the batter if they see someone break for the plate.  Now, had the sign been picked up, the outcome had 2 other options. 1.  Scutaro gets his bat on the ball and it's fair or foul, but he is still at bat. 2.  He tries to bunt and because he is planted there to bunt it, it's likely he gets hit.  That way, Reddick goes back to 3rd and we have another baserunner. Unfortunately for Marco, he then proceeds to rip one off the wall, which would of course allowed Reddick to crawl home and the game is over.  Being irritated that he missed the sign made him try to stretch it into a double and was out by 10 feet. As bad as this series of events were, there were at least 4 other opportunities to win this game and imho, the batters all failed miserably. I have been thrilled with how CC has played over the past 6 games, but when he was hitting an inning earlier with a runner on third he was just pitiful.  He did not swing at one strike, yet he struck out, even if the 3rd strike was a crappy call.  He looked so over anxious that he had no chance to even put the ball in play.  That was the win.  He likely would have walked and Reddick then hit it to the track, again, game over, Sox win. I was very impressed with the Royals pitching and they had some relievers that had really unusual deliveries that for seeing the first time, I was suprised that the Sox even made contact.  I just hate losing games when you have so many chances to win.  That's quite different that being outplayed or over-matched.  We lost a game that should have kept the lead at 3 games.  Different story tonite.  I predict that the team hits again and we add another game with 10 runs to the already impressive record of huge wins.  Miller has been a nice, albeit inconsistent addition.  If the weather holds, I predict a nice 6 inning performance and another solid BP group for the Sox. Just my thoughts.
    Posted by odessagolfer


    Which is my beef about the call in the first place. Anybody who has ever faced a submarine pitcher knows how tough it is to gauge the delivery.
    For Tito to call it on the first pitch from an unknown pitcher was not wise. Let Scut at least see one pitch to get a better idea of how to approach him. The element of surprise is not lost by taking the first pitch. If it's a ball, you have an edge. If it's a strike, Scut sees the delivers and has another shot.

    The timing of the call is what I question. As I said last night, Tito probably surprised his own players more so than the opposition!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share