Posted by coyote522 on 11/28/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):
The problem I have with Not Squeezing is that I've noticed opposing managers who don't bring the infield in knowing that I won't squeeze.
For example: bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, one out. He leaves infield back. I should squeeze but don't because I know everybody is against it. I don't score. He wins in the tenth.
My opponent took advantage of the gentlemans agreement not to squeeze.
So, the way I see it: if you bring the infield in, as they would in real life, I honor the no squeeze rule.
But from now on, if you don't bring your infield in when anybody would and should,
Honey , expect your *** to get squeezed.
I agree entirely with this. Sure, you can argue that it's gaming the system to bunt. But you're taking at least as much advantage of both the system and your opponent's decency if you don't bring the IF in in that situation. It just feels ironic for guys to yell until they're blue in the face about how unrealistic it is to squeeze x amount and have it work x% of the time - which are almost always inflated numbers from the statistics I've run, by the way - and then somehow ignore how unrealistic it is to leave the infield back with a pitcher at bat in that situation.
Also, many of these same guys (as I've pointed out in the past) are the same dudes who draft guys with a high success rate stealing bases and then steal several times as many bags with them in LIVE games. Is that realistic? Would Chase Utley still be almost perfect if he attempted 130 steals? I doubt it. Dude was never all that fast, just read the pitcher well and picked his spots.