Facing elimination in Game Four of the American League Division Series, the Angels had an opportunity to take the lead in the ninth inning.
The score was knotted up at two when pinch-hitter Kendry Morales doubled off of the Green Monster to start the ninth inning. After Reggie Willits, Morales' pinch-runner, advanced to third base on Howie Kendrick's sacrifice bunt, the Angels had the go-ahead run only 90 feet from home plate.
Erick Aybar was the batter with one out and the top of the order waiting on deck.
Normally verbose and bothersome announcers, Buck Martinez and Chip Caray made a good point. With a switch-hitting Aybar batting lefty, the right-handed batter's box was vacant.
If Boston's battery of Manny Delcarmen and Jason Varitek picked up a sign that Willits was breaking for home on a squeeze play, Delcarmen could throw the ball into the vacant batter's box. Varitek would be able to have a clean shot at catching the ball, and Willits would be dead in his tracks.
There was no tip-off of the squeeze, but with a 2-0 count, Aybar jabbed at the incoming fastball instead of letting the bat kiss the ball. Willits was already halfway home, and Varitek tagged him out just before he was able to retreat to third base.
Los Angeles went from having the go-ahead run on third base with one out to having the go-ahead run at the plate with two outs. Aybar grounded out, leaving the top of the order the now-desired 10th inning.
Of course, the Red Sox were able to take advantage of Jason Bay's one-out double, as Jed Lowrie singled him in to win the series with one out.
I see the way the game ended, and I see the god of baseball spiting Mike Scioscia for his awful managerial decision.
With one out and the go-ahead run standing on third base, Boston's infield was pulled in. Sure, Aybar had not been hitting well in the series, but he did get the game-winning hit the night before and a single earlier in Game Four.
Whether or not you want to say that Aybar was hot at the time of his ninth inning at bat, one thing is clear: putting on the suicide squeeze has a higher chance of failing than letting your batter swing.
With Willits' speed, a fly ball to the middle of the outfield would have scored the run.
With the infield in, a hard ground-ball would have a better chance of finding a hole than it normally would and a soft blooper would probably fall to the outfield grass before the infielder would be able to get to it.
Also, with one out and a 2-0 count, there was the possibility that Aybar could have worked a walk. The pitch that he jabbed at and missed may have been ball three.
Whether or not Aybar succeeded by swinging the bat, the Angels would still have another chance with a hot-swinging Chone Figgins. Of course, there wouldn't be as many ways for the run to score as there would be in Aybar's situation, but Scioscia could have relied on Figgins to serve a two-out pitch into the outfield.
If the Angels failed to score this way, the god of baseball would praise Scioscia for his correct managerial decision. However, he would not be happy that the Angels couldn't score after having a runner on second with no outs.
The run and then three defensive outs would have sent the series back to Anaheim for a fifth game.
In an elimination game, the manager has the responsibility to call the smartest plays for his team to execute. It is germane to address the fact that if the squeeze play was successful, Scioscia would have been credited as a genius. The fact of the matter is that the decision was too risky and the Angels would have been better off letting their players swing their bats.
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
I'm going to disagree with you based off one point you said in the end.
The manager has a responsibility to call the smartest plays for his team to execute..
Absolutely, 100% correct statement. Which is why I disagree with your argument. In that situation you NEED TO PUT THE BALL IN PLAY. I can't tell you how many times I've seen batters in that situation, swing away and not even put the ball in play, or pop up on the infield.
You need to call for the squeeze there because it gives you a greater chance of putting the ball into play.
The smartest play in that situation is the squeeze. The fact that Aybar couldn't execute is the reason it didn't work out. Given Aybar's skill-set, the bunt should have been a high percentage play. It was a no-brainer if you ask me.
Do you think that Delcarmen would have given Aybar something to pull for a sac fly given he was hitting lefty? I don't think so. So obviously he was pitching him outside. That should have been a great indication to Scioscia to call for the bunt.
Poor execution, correct call by the manager. I'd rather have a guy like Aybar putting the bunt down with Willits on third than having him try and put it in play by swinging.
from about 1 month ago
The 2-0 pitch was inside, and Aybar jabbed at it. He probably missed it because the pitch was an inside fastball, which is probably hard to bunt.
Worse comes to worse, Aybar pops up or strikes out, but the runner is still on third with a chance for Figgins to drive him in. I just see the odds of having 2 batters try to drive the run in from 3rd being higher than the odds of Aybar successfully bunting him in.
I've always thought that losing the game on the basepaths is worse than losing it any other way on the offensive end, and the Angels lost on the basepaths. It wasn't Willits fault, of course, but Scioscia set up the play.
about 1 month ago
I have to agree with Nino here. I have seen teams for YEARS have players come up to the plate and not put the ball in play. This was absolutely the right call, the BoSox just got lucky!
about 1 month ago
Well, I guess I lose according to the community leaders.
I still stand by my argument.
about 1 month ago
Haha no, it is a debatable issue. I guess it depends on your preference. Managers like you said will get praised if it works out, but scolded if it fails. If he would have had Aybar swing away and he grounded to third or something like that, some people would be "Oh yeah he should have put the squeeze on."
It comes down to execution and what your manager asks you to do, you better do it. I think the player holds just as much responsibility in that situation than Scioscia does. In Cleveland we like to get on Eric Wedge for not calling the bunt a lot more. Truth is, we don't have many players who can bunt. The Angels do, they are built to play that game, so it makes sense for Scioscia to play from his strengths. You are right, the runner would have still been at third if Aybar struck out. But it is always better to try and score a run with an out, because the laws of baseball say, your successful 3 out of 10 times you swing the bat. Why not take the 7 times you aren't and use that to your advantage?
That's just the way I look at it. Your argument is a valid one, given the situation, Scioscia could be questioned, I just take his side on the matter though.
from about 1 month ago
Nino,
You are right that Aybar holds responsibility as well. The first thing coaches teach their players about squeezing is that they better at least make contact with the ball, whether that means throwing the bat to the opposite batters box or jumping two feet in the air to make the contact. If Aybar just made contact, and fouled off the pitch, the squeeze play probably would have been taken off because Boston would be expecting it. The call was still made by Scioscia and I just think it was too risky with their season on the line. If this was how Game One ended, it would probably be a different story. There you can take a gamble since it is the first game.
about 1 month ago
scoscia called a squeeze because of his ego, and his need to be the reason the angels win. he screwed up, then he compounded his dumb squeeze call by arguing the play. the angles are a great team, and I understand being frustrated. they won 100 games, and added texeira in mid-season. but that was a terrible move by scioscia.
maybe an angles fan can answer this: how often did they squeeze during the year? but i beieve you are asking your team to do something in a key moment they do not usually do. i know they bunt and run and aybar is an excellent bunter, but i believe you are asking your team to do something out of the norm (the squeeze itself, not just the bunt) in a very key moment with the season on the line.
swing away, and odds would say you are better off, even with a somewhat weak hitter. you do not need a bomb in that spot, a week ground ball or a medium fly ball would have done it.
from about 1 month ago
how often did they squeeze during the year? but i beieve you are asking your team to do something in a key moment they do not usually do.
Exactly Andy, it was too risky at that given moment in their season.
about 1 month ago
agree 100% with your article Ari..Great work here.
Worse comes to worse, Aybar pops up or strikes out, but the runner is still on third with a chance for Figgins to drive him in. I just see the odds of having 2 batters try to drive the run in from 3rd being higher than the odds of Aybar successfully bunting him in.
TOTALLY TRUE. I was looking for an article like this.
about 1 month ago
I could not agree more. Great article.
write a new comment