Question about Suicide Squeeze

With a man on third and no outs, there are a whole lotta ways of getting him home without the very risk that happened in yours son's game, amongst others; FC, WP, PB, sac fly, clean hit.....

Sluggo;

quote:

maybe there are other plays to attempt that have higher odds of being successful? I was just going to let it go, but after the CWS guys said it was a bad move, I want to know why.

I would say that's the correct answer.

The s bunt is a great way to sqeeze a run in if you need it badly. The batter has to protect the runner even if the pitch is out of the zone. I have seen many games won on a SB or put into extra innings.
The batter has to make contact and keep the ball on the ground when it is put in play.

Sluggo- I think Orlando pretty much covered it, but I think what happened to your son really addresses the question.

It is a suicide "do or die" play that is not too wise when other options are available. The justification some might give you is the element of surprise. But, the surprise is usually to the team batting when they "bunt" into a double play as you had happen.

Sad commentary on baseball today (i.e., the lost art of bunting) that the suicide squeeze is considered so risky.

I think it would also come down to who you have up to bat.
A very good bunter, with speed.
Who can place the ball where ever he want's.
Also were are the Corner's playing, Up are Back.
Does the pitcher have control are is he Walking People.

Don't forget most great hitters fail 6 out of 10 times.

I don't think the question was is the suicide squeeze so risky, but why risk it with nobody out?

I would expect the coach was thinking the defense would never expect it with no outs...

EH, on the suicide squeeze you don't care if the bunter has speed. He can carry a boat anchor for all I care. Just get the stinking bunt down.

The sad thing, Orlando, is that the suicide squeeze should be very low risk - IF the batter is a decent bunter. But there are so few decent bunters any more. With a decent bunter, the suicide is very difficult to stop.

I understand why with no outs its not good, but there is then only 1 situation where you could- 1 out. But it also seems weird to limit the squeeze to just one out. By the way, I think its the most exciting play. This year, we had it done, and it was second and 3rd. Fast guy on 2nd, he ALSO scored. It was amazing.

Texan, I understand your point.
I'd try to do both.
Bunt to score, plus bunt for base hit. EH

saw this happen a couple years ago... runners on 2nd and 3rd... squeeze bunt... 2 umpires(yes its important)... as the runner on second approaches 3rd he cuts the corner when he reaches the cut out in the infield... the homeplate ump watched to make sure the run scored... the base ump watched the play at 1st and the other runner ended up makin it to home... the defensive team went crazy but no ump saw it... it was crazy

That's Cheating, Just as much as Steroid's, Spitball's, HGH,
and any other way you can Cheat.

You have Know Respect for the Game if you Have to Cheat to Win. JMHO

The suicide squeeze is a great play if done correctly.

My son's HS team won 2 games this year 1-0 on suicide squeezes, including one in the section semi-finals. They went on take home a section championship. Sorry, I can't remember how many outs there were, except that it was less then 2.

By the way, on both occaisions the bunter was safe at first.

The suicide squeeze is and always has been a risky play because of the committment of the runner to go home. Even with outstanding bunters, the play is risky due to pitch-outs. All pitches are not buntable. Sure, strikes are easy to bunt. Have you ever tried to bunt a ball under your chin? Pitchers are taught that if they detect the runner breaking early or if the batter is attempting to bunt that they should either pitch-out or go up and tight (depending on the coache's preference). You will never see a professional team sqeeze with no outs. It's not the percentage play with no outs.

quote:

Originally posted by leftymom:
Have you ever tried to bunt a ball under your chin?

Yes'm. Not only I have tried it, I have done it on quite a few occasions.

Changing the pitch location once the pitcher has started his motion is itself very risky. Many times I have seen the pitcher throw a wild pitch while trying to go up & in on a bunter or trying to throw a pitch out. And it is difficult for the catcher to catch a pitch thrown at a batter when the batter manages to duck out of the way.

BTW, you don't see the suicide squeeze much at any level any more, in any situation. Why? Because bunting is not taught nor practiced adequately. Who would try a suicide squeeze with batters who can't even lay down a sac?

The Suicide Squeeze with the best percentage of success?

Bases Loaded... 1 out... 3-1 count or even 3-2 count... pitcher in the wind up, though works out of the stretch, too. Runner leaves early giving away the squeeze play. Hitter squares early giving away the squeeze play. Opponents yelling SQUEEZE! Pitcher must throw a strike or walk in a run... Pitch out won't work, ball 4... Hitter must only bunt a pitch that could be called a strike, no chasing a bad pitch.

Obviously this would only be done if one run is very important and if the hitter was not one of your best and can bunt. We actually won a game on this play because the pitcher panicked and pitched out (walking in the winning run).

Good Evening All,

I agree with those here who say the risk comes from the fact that players are not taught how to properly bunt in this situation. I see it all the time, the "stab at it" bunt, the "try to get a hit" bunt....etc. The lack of proper teaching/coaching is where the risk is here. The player must realize he is not trying to get a hit when this play is called for. If both the runner & batter do not give the play away until they see the pircher commit to the plate, you have a good chance of success. Executing this play on a good hitter's count also improves your chances of pulling it off. 0-1 or 0-2 is not a good time to try it.

The batter is giving himself up...period. His ONLY objective is to get the bunt down on the ground in fair territory. He has to say in the box and make sure he bunts the ball in play. No racing out of the box and stabbing at the ball. As far as the batter's speed goes, fast or slow, it makes absolutely no difference. The entire concept of the play is to trade an out for the run. Anything you get after that is a bonus.


As far as trying it with no-outs, many things factor into that decision. The batters coming up next and their ability to drive in that run without going to the squeeze are the biggest factors in making the choice about the squeeze.

a suicide squeeze is successful 95% of the time, if the bunter and the runner are doing their job. If the runner doesn't break hard as soon as a the pitcher goes home, is dead anyways. And as long as the bunter gets it down, just not right on top of home plate, and not hard back at the pitcher, it will be successful. I havebeen to many games, when other teams have had 1 or no outs, runner on 3rd, and the runner breaks, and even if the batter gets it straight back at the pitcher, the runner is on top of the plate as soon as he gets it, so he would then have to throw and make a tag in about 2 steps, which doesn't happen, so as long as the runner has broken hard to home, and the batter gets it on the ground, there is a very good chance the run will score, almost surely.

Execution, execution, execution

quote:

Originally posted by NHFundamentalsDad:
I agree with those here who say the risk comes from the fact that players are not taught how to properly bunt in this situation.
...
The lack of proper teaching/coaching is where the risk is here.
...
The player must realize he is not trying to get a hit when this play is called for.
...
The batter is giving himself up...period. His ONLY objective is to get the bunt down on the ground in fair territory.
...
As far as the batter's speed goes, fast or slow, it makes absolutely no difference.
...

Precisely. And worth repeating.