Suicide Squeeze Play

The Angels tried a suicide squeeze in the top of the tenth inning last night that failed. They went on to lose the game in the following inning. Obviously, it is Monday morning quarterbacking to criticize the failed play now. But I was immediately struck by the failure as an example of "over-managing."

Had it worked and the Angels gone on to win the series after being down 2-0, Scioscia would have been hailed as "the best manager in baseball." In some quarters, he is already considered the best manager. But as it failed....

Here's the thing with the suicide squeeze: it's all or nothing and always a risky play because of the exact thing that happened: Aybar doesn't get the bunt down. This happens all the time if you watch baseball. Most players generally aren't great bunters - I don't know if Aybar is or not - but even so - it's not as easy as it sounds under any circumstance. Pitchers make bad pitches, you over think the play trying to hide it, etc. The A's pulled it off several years ago against the Yanks in a playoff series and it work brilliantly, partially because it was so unexpected - the A's play long ball, not small ball, and the infield was back, it was by a hitter NOT known as a bunter, etc. And it worked!

There are factors I don't know - the Sox had a middle reliever pitching who I don't think was a strikeout pitcher. Had it been Papelbon, I would understand the fear of a strike out. Does Aybar stike out a lot? I doubt it. All Aybar needs to do is put the ball in play and there's going to a good chance the guy scores. A sharp grounder right at an infielder or a pop-up are the only way the runner doesn't score. With the 2-1 count, it's still a hitter's count...just something about the scenario I don't like. On 2-0 or even 3-0 I can see it being a better option.

Anyhow, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. I think Scioscia tried finesse when he didn't need it.