http://chicagocubsblog--mps.disqus.com/enWed, 12 Aug 2009 12:58:34 -0000http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/cubsblog/2009/07/28/playing-hard-instead-of-smart/#comment-14728678At that time Lou had the best bunter on the team in Blanco on the bench and didn't use him in that situation. Poor decision I thought. I'd like to know anyone's thoughts on that.esd2000Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:58:34 -0000http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/cubsblog/2009/07/28/playing-hard-instead-of-smart/#comment-13488523Vlad, My question is whether or not we can expect a pitcher who has been uncharacteristically wild for a short time to continue to be? I think we might be able to expect a little poorer control, but that that the control will be far from what it had been and much more similar to his career numbers. I don't mind Lou calling the squeeze. A position player gets the bunt down about 75% of the time and probably waives through it rarely. A half-way decent bunt and the Cubs win the game. <br> <br>I guess where I start to wonder about the decision is if that's what you're going to do, just use your best bunter (a pitcher). the defense is going to be protecting against the squeeze in that situation anyway and it doesn't matter if it's a good bunt. Pitchers get bunts down a little over 80% of the time and probably have a lot more control over where it's bunted at. <br> <br>by using the pitcher you take away any element of surprise making it more difficult while you gain a bit of that element of surprise making it more effective. It's probably about the same value from a pitcher or position player. I assume Lou has seen Fontenot bunt in practice, and felt he could do it. If not, it's a very questionable call. <br> <br>I guess I just don't think the wildness of the pitcher previously can come into the decision-making process unless we know that pitchers who lose control continue to lose it. I don't think that's true.MB21Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:36:28 -0000