Much likely had to do was the fact that the third and fourth hitters in the lineup were up. A squeeze gets one run in, but not two. You think with the heart of the lineup at the plate you’re going to get more than two strikeouts. I’m sure DVH was thinking the chance for a crooked number was good with 3-4-5 coming up.
Yes but what were their numbers to that point. A tie game, a surprise squeeze play and let 4, and 5 take care the go ahead run. Then at worst he’s out at the plate or we We have a tie game. and still 4 and 5 up.
ONE thing I don’t know is 3,4,5 bunting ability.
IMO 5 years ago DVH would have put the squeeze play on.
Help me out at least 2 other times we could have done the same thing…
Mind you what is done is done, I just really think DVH played small ball for so long…And would have done things differently in the past.
Having watched and been a fan of Whitey Ball during the 80s, I love a great squeeze play. But DVH knows the bunting ability of those guys; we don’t. Despite the numbers to that point, he must have thought we’re due a big hit.
I would never bunt Bonfield. I’ve seen him try to bunt before. Not something he does well. Biggers is a great bunter, but he’s been the most consistent hitter. Plus, I don’t like the lefty squeeze play nearly as much. This team hit 82 homers. This was a team that Dave didn’t want to bunt. Odds favoured letting these guys swing the bats. I agree with that. If you had bunted a lot, maybe they were comfy doing that. But this team wasn’t used to that. I think he let them swing because that’s what best fit the way this team played and in particular those two guys.
Clay I agree with not bunting in that situation with Bonfield and Fletcher but the ball has to be put in play. Situational hitting got us beat, I would have not have thought they wouldn’t get it in play. Both seem to really have bad approaches in their at bats, cut the swings down and get it in play, they were conceding a run playing back.
Both of these guys are GREAT situational hitters, probably our best. It just didn’t happen. I agree totally with what you wrote. They have to get it in play. They know that. I think in the case of Monday night, all of the position players on both teams were beat physically. Perhaps mentally, too. On the other hand, none of the pitchers had been through that kind of a grind that the position players faced. They had not played all of those innings and been on their feet for that length of time. For Arkansas, it was double, because they’d played ORU the day before, as well as the six-hour game against MSU. So it was just one of those times where they were trying their best, but maybe the execution was just a hair off. That’s all it took.
I think most expected a slugfest with pitching rolling through for a second time for both teams. None of us factored in that the hitter’s had been in a much tougher stretch from the previous 24 hours than the pitchers.
I’m going to write a little bit on this in my column later this week. I’d do it today, but I’m rolling through our magazine deadlines, editing copy and writing some features. I do have some interesting comments about this series from some baseball folks.
Depends on the % of times you score a run with a squeeze, because you’re giving up an out.
For sake of this argument, let’s just say it’s 8 out of 10. With runners on second and third with no outs, you can calculate the runs earned on that play as 0.80. With Fletcher’s average at .291 and Biggers at .338, the runs earned by that man on second is 0.47 (1 minus the odds of neither of those getting a hit).That adds up to 1.27 runs.
Now, let’s look at the odds allowing Bonfield to swing away. If you use Bonfield’s average of .294, the runs earned by those men from second and third with no outs is 1.34 (1 minus the odds of none of the three getting a hit, times 2 baserunners), assuming that both can score on a base hit.
I realize there are some additional variables for sac flys, but those could happen in both circumstances. And I also think the 80% odds of scoring on a squeeze is generous.