CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Playoff Diary (10/07)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Prospectus Today: LDS ... (10/06)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Today: Maki... (10/09)
Next Article >>
Premium Article On the Beat: Early Off... (10/08)

October 7, 2008

Prospectus Today

Closing Out and Waiting Around

by Joe Sheehan

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

Subscribe for $4.95 per month
Recurring subscription - cancel anytime.


a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Purchase a $39.95 gift subscription
a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

The four teams that advanced to the League Championship Series are probably the top two teams in the AL, and two of the top three playoff teams in the NL. We can debate the Dodgers; relative standing in the NL as a whole, complicated by the fact that their playoff lineup is nothing like anything they used during the season, but I don't think anyone would argue that they're a better team than the Brewers at the moment.

They all won their Division Series in a similar fashion: run prevention. No winning team allowed more than five runs in any DS game, or more than 13 runs in the series. On the whole, the teams advancing allowed 41 runs in 15 games, 2.7 per contest. Only the Dodgers were particularly impressive at the plate, although the Rays and Red Sox each had their moments. It was pitching and defense-I got five years older just typing that-that made the difference for the winning teams. They kept their opponents in the park, allowing just eight home runs in the 15 games. They didn't walk people, just 41, or 2.7 per game, and they had nearly a 3:1 strikeout-to-walk ratio.

On offense, they played big ball. In fact, the Division Series round validated the idea that you win post-season games not by scratching out a single run using small-ball tactics, but by using short-sequence offenses-power-to score, and by putting up crooked numbers. The team hitting more home runs in a game went 12-1 in the Division Series. In all seven NLDS games, and nine of 15 overall, the winning team scored more runs in a single inning than the loser did all game long.

Prevent home runs, hit them yourselves. That may not be a sauce, but it's a pretty good dry rub.

By the way, when did the Division Series start to suck? For all the excitement we had in the early days of its existence, the round has started to leave baseball fans with way too much time on their hands in the second week of October. We had three over the minimum 12 games this season, which is a marathon compared to the 13-just one over the minimum!-we saw last year. There hasn't been a Game Five in the Division Series since 2005, and there haven't been two in one year since 2003.

This is probably just random chance. There's no structural reason for the Division Series to end up 3-0 or 3-1 so often, and it's not as if the team with the inferior regular-season performance is the team on the wrong side of that mark very much. However, given that MLB has invested a lot in the postseason, chipping away at the value of pennant races to build up October, year after year of a first round that doesn't deliver on its promise-how many "There's Only One October" ads have you seen? 200? 300?-calls into question the value of that decision. We know that September is not what it used to be because of the small-division/wild-card combination. If October is going to disappoint, and let's take a moment to remember that we haven't had a Game Six in the World Series since 2003, then that tradeoff doesn't work at all.

Some notes on the Game Fours:

Rays/White Sox

Hey, the White Sox hit two home runs and scored... two runs. For the series, they scored six of their 13 runs on homers, a near-perfect match for their in-season mark. In the four games, they had 22 singles, four doubles, and 10 walks. That's not enough, not nearly enough. They got two good starts, and they needed more. The very simple formula that helped them win the Central broke down for a week.

The reaction to a team that relies on home runs the way that the Sox do is to say that they need to play more small ball, show the ability to manufacture runs, add speed, all the usual clichés. The Sox don't necessarily need that. They do, however, need to diversify, and by that, I mean find any other offensive skill. Hit some singles, doubles, triples, draw some walks, steal some bases. The Sox are one-dimensional, and not in the good way that gets criticized by people who don't understand that teams can score a lot of runs without channeling the 1909 Detroit Tigers, like, say, the early Billy Beane A's. These White Sox don't pair home runs with walks. They don't pair them with anything, and they haven't for some time. They have to diversify.

Knowing how baseball works, though, I'll make this prediction: The White Sox will score fewer runs next season, have a lower EqA, use more small-ball tactics, and be praised for having a better offense.

The Rays just played better baseball. They didn't do any one thing particularly well-although their bullpen was just a little ridiculous: 11 2/3 innings, 13 strikeouts, two walks, one run allowed. For four games, J.P. Howell and Grant Balfour looked for all the world like Norm Charlton and Rob Dibble at their 1990 peak. Dominating the Sox of a different color will be a more challenging task, but right now, this bullpen is as dangerous as that of the Angels' team the Red Sox just dispatched, and perhaps more threatening for the presence of two good southpaws.

Red Sox/Angels

An e-mail sent in the eighth inning last night:

Subj: Vlad

Scioscia not learning. I'm calling him getting thrown out as the tying run.

If J.D. Drew is two steps further in or takes a little better line to the ball or gets off a slightly stronger throw, that would have been prescient. Vladimir Guerrero was safe without a tag, and the Angels tied the game. They would lose in the ninth.

The play, though, encapsulated the series for me. When he first got the job in Anaheim, Mike Scioscia seemed unconcerned with experience in assigning roles, but now seems to have lost some of that edge. In the situation referenced above-down two in the eighth inning of an elimination game, tying run on second-you have to have the fastest person possible on second base. Scioscia, for the second time in the series, didn't pinch-run for Guerrero, who at this point is a below-average baserunner. It didn't bite him the way it did in Game One, but it was nonetheless a mistake.

Whether Scioscia is making these errors out of loyalty or out of an inability to evaluate his talent doesn't matter. What matters is that he has to figure out whether he's going to manage the players he has or the players he wishes he had, because "Angels baseball" didn't work with the 2008 Angels roster. It was perhaps the slowest team he'd had since 2001. It was probably the worst defensive team of his time in Anaheim. The naked aggression that has been the organization's signature hurt them in this series, on the bases and at the plate. You're welcome to point to 100 wins, but the facts are that the Angels had excellent pitching and weak competition, and only one of those applied in the Division Series. Putting the ball in play as an offensive strategy doesn't work very well when you're facing the best defensive team in the AL, and wasting the baserunners you do get is devastating when you just have no path to getting very many.

I think Scioscia is a terrific manager, but he has a real test in front of him because the 2009 Angels aren't going to be any different. They could be a little faster, depending on who plays left field, but they're going to be a year older everywhere else. There are no young position players with speed on the horizon. The approach on which he's built all of his success is going to be ill-suited to his personnel next year. How he makes this adjustment is going to be one of the more interesting stories of the 2009 season.

Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Joe's other articles. You can contact Joe by clicking here

Related Content:  The Who,  Division Series,  Tactics

46 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

roughcarrigan

I'm a little disappointed. I hoped for some discussion of Scioscia's choice to try a suicide squeeze play when even the TBS announcers saw it coming from a mile away.

Oct 07, 2008 10:27 AM
rating: 8
 
Evan
(47)

I think the squeeze was a good call. The guys at Lookout Landing went through the win expentancy math based on Aybar's skill at bunting and the guys due up next.

The squeeze didn't fail because the Red Sox predicted it. The squeeze failed because Aybar missed his bunt.

Oct 07, 2008 16:53 PM
rating: 0
 
leez34

Can I just point out that I can't stand the comment ratings? A -1 makes a comment invisible, and roughcarrigan, who didn't say anything offensive, had that -1 when I clicked it. If a comment is inappropriate, fine. But if you just disagree with something, it's not fair.

And yes, I point this out because it's happened to me a number of times.

Oct 07, 2008 11:17 AM
rating: 4
 
BP staff member Dave Pease
BP staff
(2)

Yes, you can point this out.

We'll probably change this behaviour sometime soon. We're still considering our options.

Thanks for commenting!

Oct 07, 2008 12:06 PM
 
jtsports01
(338)

How do you not addresss the suicide squeeze? That has to go down as one of the worst managerial decisions in recent memory.

Oct 07, 2008 11:32 AM
rating: 4
 
mattoves

How do you not address the fact that Willits unambiguously should have been safe after Varitek dropped the ball?

Oct 07, 2008 13:36 PM
rating: 0
 
doncoffin
(422)

Tagged the runner, held the ball for at least a second, ball came out when his glove hit the ground. He had clear control of the ball after the tag.

Oct 07, 2008 19:07 PM
rating: 0
 
mattoves

In a collision at the plate, if the catcher loses the ball when his glove hits the ground (even if he had control immediately after the collision) is the runner called safe and out? He's called safe every time. So what makes this play different?

Oct 07, 2008 19:12 PM
rating: 0
 
Lassaller

Perhaps because at home plate the runner generally attempts to dislodge the ball, so holding onto the ball becomes part of deciding the play. There was no attempt to dislodge the ball at third, so there was no reason for the play to carry forward.

I guess this is baseball's version of the tuck rule.

Oct 08, 2008 05:24 AM
rating: 0
 
Drew Miller

Was anyone else's first thought, on this play, "The ground cannot cause a fumble"?

There was nothing unambiguous about it. The ball is clearly in Varitek's control until he hits the ground. No amount of ESPN story-creation can change that.

Or that it was one of the worst decisions in LDS history.

Oct 08, 2008 07:55 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Sheehan
BP staff
(17)

I didn't think that in the moment, but on one of the replays I did. I might have just flipped over from some football game. Good comp.

What I thought about was the increasingly-frequent call at second base where the pivot man catches a throw and drops the ball as he's trying to make the throw to first base. The first play is over. The out is in the books.

I thought it was the right call, with enough gray area that had it been called the other way, I could probably have defended it.

Oct 08, 2008 14:31 PM
 
markj111

Are you seriously arguing that the Dodgers are not better than the Brewers?

Oct 07, 2008 12:02 PM
rating: 1
 
leez34

I was confused by his syntax at first too, but no, Joe is saying no one would argue AGAINST the Dodgers being better than the Brewers. I.e., Dodgers obviously better.

Oct 07, 2008 12:16 PM
rating: 3
 
Nick J

Yeah, I found it confusing too. As they exist at the moment, I would think it's clear that the Dodgers are the superior team. Joe, is that what you meant?

Oct 07, 2008 13:21 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Sheehan
BP staff
(17)

Yup. Dodgers > Brewers. Going from Berroa to Furcal is just a massive change.

Oct 07, 2008 14:03 PM
 
jefferickson

I think the decision to leave Vlad in there is defensible, if for no other reason that you don't want to take his bat out of the lineup for future at-bats. Vlad's baserunning ability matters precisely in that one outcome, right? I know because it's an elimination game, that run matters more, but I think it's at least a close call whether Scoscia is right here.

Oct 07, 2008 12:10 PM
rating: 2
 
BillyB

There are probably any number of arguments to make on the squeeze--safety vs. suicide, the count, etc--but if he gets his bat on a fairly buntable pitch everyone is talking about what a genius Scoscia is. It was a failure of execution, not of one team outmanaging the other with a pitchout.

Oct 07, 2008 13:25 PM
rating: 0
 
rbrianc

and that was the failure of the Angels the whole series - the failure to execute.

As appalling as the inability to get the extra base or clutch hit was (and Boston pitching does deserve a lot of credit for that), the defensive lapses were inexcusable.

Howie Kendrick overall had a terrible series and was the biggest reason, offensively and defensively they lost the series. Joe focuses a lot on Sciosc for some reason, but the greater fault is Angel players didn't execute.

the only thing that's consoling is that compared to past years, the Halos at least won a game and were competitive each night.

Oct 07, 2008 17:03 PM
rating: 0
 
Drew Miller

True. My only beef with this is: If they're trying to get the runner in from third, a groundball or a sacrifice fly would have done it. The suicide squeeze is riskier.

And if Aybar is not the right man to hit a grounder to the right side, or hit a sac fly, get someone in there who is.

Oct 08, 2008 08:09 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Sheehan
BP staff
(17)

Hey, I can comment via Blackberry. Cool.

I didn't see the problem with the suicide squeeze. It's consistent with everything the Angels have done this decade, it's appropriate to the situation and the hitter, and better suicide than safety squeeze, always.

I didn't address because I didn't think it was noteworthy, I guess. The execution failed, but it was the appropriate play. Aybar really made a poor effort, however.

Now, everyone turn on ESPN. Thanks.

Oct 07, 2008 12:27 PM
 
elccpa24

Okay. This has nothing to do with anything about this article or these comments. However I did just watch you on ESPNNews and I would kiss your feet if I could. Thank you for the sensible, analytical, realistic comments about Manny Ramirez's play in the month of July for the Red Sox instead of repeating all the drivel. I swear I don't know how I am going to get through the NLCS listening to Tim McCarver bash Ramirez with every other breath he takes. He sounds like he is reading a PR release from the Boston Red Sox FO. Manny played great for the Red Sox during the month of July. Hell during the 7 1/2 years he was there. To say nothing of the entertainment value. This is one Red Sox fan who is sick of the Manny bashing, that not only continues to watch him but to root for him to do well, and who sometimes hopes he comes back to Fenway and kicks the Red Sox butts except I have nothing against the Red Sox players. I am a Red Sox fan of 50 years. Again thank you for not just repeating all the rhetoric. i can't tell you how much I appreciate it (unless the kiss your feet comment says enough!

Oct 08, 2008 13:30 PM
rating: 0
 
GregJP

Peter Bourjos has a lot of speed. I think he has a 50% chance of being the CF of the future.

Oct 07, 2008 12:27 PM
rating: 0
 
Dailey247

Anyone else think having A.J. Pierzynski hit in the 2 hole was a huge tactical error by Ozzie Guillen? How about getting Ken Griffey's OBP in front of the power core, or even jumping straight to the pop by going Cabrera-Dye-Thome-Konerko?

Oct 07, 2008 12:29 PM
rating: 0
 
ClubberLang

Moving Griffey would have made some sense, but moving up the whole power part of the order wouldn't have done all that much. The main problem is that there weren't guys on base in front of the power. That problem was significantly exacerbated when the highest OBP on the team by 30 points went out at the beginning of September. It wasn't just Quentin's power that they missed, they missed his regularly being on base in front of Dye and Thome when he wasn't belting it out of the park. Even Cabrera had a sub-league average OBP.

The problem was outside of the big bats, everyone's OBP sucked. Ramirez showed some signs of maybe having a more patient approach toward the end of the year. They have to hope that sticks and that it wasn't a blip. And they probably need to find someone to play one of the middle infield spots and/or a CF that can get on base at a good clip. Maybe that guy is Chris Getz. Maybe it's a free agent. Maybe it's Nick Swisher in center again and he'll bounce back (I mean, he almost has to be better with the bat, right?). I really don't know.

Oct 07, 2008 13:48 PM
rating: 0
 
brosa49

It was suicide and now wait til next year. Angels had Boston right were they wanted them and they played Russian roulette.

Oct 07, 2008 12:37 PM
rating: 0
 
montanabowers

The Angels will be different next year . . . I hope. Did anyone notice that Kendrick didn't seem to have his full range of motion. This is a UTK question, but doesn't a hamstring injury affect lateral movement? Jed Lowrie's ball doesn't get by a healthy second baseman. Personally, I think Kendrick single handedly lost the series for the Angels. He had multiple defensive miscues and left over a dozen men on base without scoring one. My prediction is Sean Rodriguez will be the full time second baseman next year. His glove work was amazing this year and if Kendrick can't hit or stay healthy, there is no place in the lineup for his very average/possibly below average defensive skills. Also, for you east coast bums - next year Brandon Wood will emerge as a very good every day player. I close with the classic: Wait until next year!

Oct 07, 2008 12:50 PM
rating: 0
 
rbrianc

Agree that HK cost them the series, but that's 20/20 hindsight. I would have made the same decision to go with him. But now in retrospect, everyone can say S. Rodriguez would have been the better player.

Howie is better than this - we all know that. He just choked. And I hope he stays healthy and proves what he can do next time post season comes around.

Oct 07, 2008 17:09 PM
rating: 0
 
sroney

Everyone keeps harping on the Angels' weak competition, yet during the season the Angels commentators kept telling me that their record was actually better against better teams. And while I cannot find THAT split so far, the Angels were 30-16 against the ALE, the best record in the league.

Oct 07, 2008 13:01 PM
rating: 0
 
ElAngelo
(942)

Joe: I think the solution to "solving" the NLDS is to simply make them best-of-7. Frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet, unless the players are balking at the possibility of playing 2 more games.

Now, if we could convince MLB to go back to best-of-nine for the World Series with minimal rest....

Oct 07, 2008 13:19 PM
rating: 1
 
drew22675

The Angels were 14-4 vs Bos and Balt. 16-12 vs TB, NYY and Tor combined. Let's throw the regular season 8-1 record vs Bos out the window and playing Balt was the equivalent ALW opponent, young, one dimensional and a club they SHOULD beat. I think its fun to talk about how team's fared in the regular season but it really doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Bos played better in all phases of the game and that's why they advanced to the LCS.

Oct 07, 2008 13:25 PM
rating: 0
 
drew22675

I love the best of 9 format! As far as I'm concerned the more baseball the better.

Also, I'd be in favor of the LDS going to a 7 game series only if they had less days off. It really shouldn't take 10 days to play a 7 game series or 8 days to play a 5 game series which would have been the case of the Angels won last night.

Oct 07, 2008 13:29 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Sheehan
BP staff
(17)

It's not the MLBPA. It's hard to add games without pushing too deep into the calendar, and honestly, it is hard to play baseball when it's 40 and damp. You don't want to decide a championship that way, so first week of November is kind of an outer bound.

No one wants to shorten the regular season. No one wants to play doubleheaders.

Compressing the postseason schedule would work for me, and I imagine for many others. The problem, and we almost saw this a few times earlier this decade, is that two days of rain in one place just completely screws it all up. That was the nominal reason for the scheduling changes (TV was also a factor), and it's kind of a good one.

I don't think the difference between best-of-five and best-of-seven is worth going to the mat over. It's all short-series baseball.

Oct 07, 2008 14:09 PM
 
misterdelaware

Joe, I'm surprised you don't take any issue with the suicide squeeze. As the first poster pointed out, it surprised no one and the situation (although not the hitter himself) was about as bad as possible; hard throwing righty on the mound and lefty at the plate. Why not give Kendrick, Aybar/Wood and Figgins each cracks at getting Willits home? Isn't that a far higher percentage strategy than putting all your figurative chips in the equally figurative suicide squeeze basket (assuming that was the plan from the start)?

Oct 07, 2008 14:56 PM
rating: 0
 
misterdelaware

(Or putting all of your eggs on the table, I guess. Pretty stellar Comments debut by me, huh?)

Oct 07, 2008 14:57 PM
rating: 0
 
Dougie4512

One thing no one is mentioning on the suicide squeeze attempt is the job Willits did at 3B. He can fly and didn't tip off at all that it was a squeeze. He got to his primary lead, took a hop, and took off at a point the pitcher couldn't adjust where he was throwing the ball (almost at the pitcher's release point--from the TBS high-angle replay). It might be a little late for a slower baserunner but because of Willits's speed he could afford to be patient. The pitch was adequate enough to get down: fastball, middle-in, around the belt to a good bunter. You could argue that hitting for Aybar was the play, but if let Aybar hit, then I think having a good bunter bunt to get a one run lead with 3 outs to go is a smart play. Anything but a rocket back to the mound gets the run and the game to Rodriguez. I'd take my chances there. It didn't work because of one man's execution, not because of the call.

Oct 07, 2008 16:01 PM
rating: 0
 
Teraxx

The call for the squeeze was a absolutely indefensible maneuver, no matter how many times Scioscia has gotten it to 'work' in the past. You don't waste an out to get a man to third (low risk) just to try an insanely high risk move like a squeeze with the next batter. It's utterly illogical and the chances of scoring that run with 1 out aren't remote high (especially with a speedster like Willits on third). It's clear that if he's moving on contact on that grounder to first base, Willits scores that run.

As for Varitek tag, he made the tag, the runner is out, then V-tek fell down and the ball popped loose. Once the tag is made and ball control is confirmed (as it was by the ump) the play is over.

Oct 07, 2008 16:49 PM
rating: 0
 
Dougie4512

How is it indefensible? If a good bunter who has 1 hit in the series, has little fly ball power, and has been late on fastballs all series is facing the infield in during the 9th inning of a tie game gets the bunt down anywhere, the run scores and the Angels are up 1 with 3 outs left. Just because a squeeze in the 2nd inning might not be a good idea, and "small ball" tactics aren't generally good ideas early in the game, it does not mean that a squeeze in the 9th inning with a bad hitter/good bunter/good defensive SS is a bad play. It was the right play for the situation. The execution was poor. I'll take my chances up 1 in the bottom of the 9th inning with Rodriguez on the mound against the middle-bottom of the Red Sox order. I like the odds of Aybar getting a bunt down on the ground anywhere over hitting a groundball through the infield or a fly ball deep enough to score the run (or get his 2nd hit of the series). Unless it's a slowly hit ball, Willits isn't scoring on a ball to an infielder with the infield in. Those extra 3-4 steps he gets while the ball is traveling to the plate on the squeeze is huge.

Oct 07, 2008 19:19 PM
rating: 0
 
frampton
(870)

I agree it's defensible -- the positive/negative analysis here doesn't seem to take into account that a foul ball on a suicide squeeze is a totally neutral event. All Aybar had to do is make some contact, and I think it's on him that he bunted right through a buntable pitch in a situation where his only job is to make SOME contact. It wasn't anything that the Sox did based on the supposed predictability of the squeeze, it was just Aybar's failure.

Oct 07, 2008 23:42 PM
rating: 0
 
Trieu

According to BBtN ("When Is One Run Worth More Than Two?"), with a runner on third and one out, you have a 66.1% chance of scoring. Weigh that against the probability of Aybar successfully executing the bunt and Willits making it home. C'est tout.

(Note that Scioscia could have pinch hit for Aybar. That he didn't do so suggested that the suicide squeeze was indeed coming.)

Oct 07, 2008 20:50 PM
rating: 0
 
Dougie4512

I guess my overall point is that random player has a 66.1% chance to get the run in, but not necessarily Aybar right then and there in that situation. He looked bad all series long. I think it's a rational decision to have him bunt and keep him in for defense. If you pinch-hit for Aybar, you lose his defense. That being said, I wouldn't have minded hitting Morales there (Wood's lack of contact would have worried me) either.

Oct 08, 2008 06:56 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Sheehan
BP staff
(17)

Morales hit the double that started the sequence. I'm pretty sure had he hit for Aybar, that would have been a bigger controversy.

One other point about Aybar, or anyone, possibly swinging away: you can't really hit a sac fly to left in Fenway.

Let me throw this out there, passed on from a caller to 1380 AM in St. Louis: are we all focused on the wrong bunt? Was the mistake not the squeeze, but the sacrifice that preceded it. No one out, runner on second, high-contact, opposite-field hitter at the plate. Why are you sacrificing with Kendrick when just letting him swing has a very high-percentage chance of producing contact that will advance the runner, with some chance of a hit?

I want to credit Jason, I think, in St. Louis for this. Forget the squeeze--the sacrifice was a huge error in the course of that inning.

Oct 08, 2008 14:41 PM
 
hessshaun

I thought the squeeze was ridiculous at the moment.

Oct 08, 2008 08:03 AM
rating: 0
 
sbnirish77

All this talk about Scioscia overlooks the decison to not bring in Papelbon by Francona to face Guerrero. If the Angels had won this game, that is the decision we all would be debating. And if the Angels won game 5, it would rival Grady Little's finest moment.

Oct 08, 2008 10:32 AM
rating: 0
 
lmccray


Opinions about the advisibility of a suicide squeeze depend on the odds that it will work. From the previous comments, I saw no reference to data-derived odds of past success. Do they exist, someplace?

Oct 08, 2008 11:08 AM
rating: 0
 
Teraxx

lmmccray: I didn't have any data to back up my statement, it's true, but doesn't baseball common sense dictate that a squeeze is riskier: Here are the 2 negative outcomes: a) out at home after bunt- highly unlikely, granted b) missed bunt and out at home - definitely the most likely- are the

Letting Aybar hit (as well as the next hitter) gives 2 chances at plating Willits, including at LEAST 1 chance where virtually almost any type of out, even on the infield, scores that run. There's also the slim chance of scoring on a possible passed ball/wild pitch?

I was truly stunned to see the Angels attempt it.

Oct 08, 2008 14:14 PM
rating: 0
 
PKB
(363)

"One thing no one is mentioning on the suicide squeeze attempt is the job Willits did at 3B. He can fly and didn't tip off at all that it was a squeeze."

I think that's because everyone saw the squeeze coming already so Willits deception was wholly irrelevant.

Oct 09, 2008 16:54 PM
rating: 0
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Playoff Diary (10/07)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Prospectus Today: LDS ... (10/06)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Today: Maki... (10/09)
Next Article >>
Premium Article On the Beat: Early Off... (10/08)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Premium Article The Prospectus Hit List: Friday, May 22
West Coast By Us: Day 1: In The Land Where E...
Premium Article Rubbing Mud: The Quarter-Season Odds Report
West Coast By Us: Day 2: Taco the Town
Going Yard: The Near Perfection of Pederson
West Coast By Us: Day 3: Nice
BP Boston

MORE FROM OCTOBER 7, 2008
Playoff Diary
Premium Article You Could Look It Up: The Best-Worst Blue Ja...
Premium Article Prospectus Hit and Run: Big Gains, Big Loser...
Premium Article Future Shock: Arizona Fall League Preview
Premium Article Prospectus Q&A: Sal Fasano

MORE BY JOE SHEEHAN
2008-10-10 - Premium Article Clash of the AL East Titans
2008-10-10 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Notes on NLCS Game One
2008-10-09 - Prospectus Today: Making a Stab
2008-10-07 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Closing Out and Waiting Ar...
2008-10-06 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: LDS Recap
2008-10-05 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: One In, Two Knocking
2008-10-03 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Are You Experienced?
More...

MORE PROSPECTUS TODAY
2008-10-11 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: NLCS Game Two and ALCS Gam...
2008-10-10 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Notes on NLCS Game One
2008-10-09 - Prospectus Today: Making a Stab
2008-10-07 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Closing Out and Waiting Ar...
2008-10-06 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: LDS Recap
2008-10-05 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: One In, Two Knocking
2008-10-03 - Premium Article Prospectus Today: Are You Experienced?
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2008-10-07 - Playoff Diary