Can I just point out that I can't stand the comment ratings? A -1 makes a comment invisible, and roughcarrigan, who didn't say anything offensive, had that -1 when I clicked it. If a comment is inappropriate, fine. But if you just disagree with something, it's not fair.

And yes, I point this out because it's happened to me a number of times.

How do you not addresss the suicide squeeze? That has to go down as one of the worst managerial decisions in recent memory.

Are you seriously arguing that the Dodgers are not better than the Brewers?

I think the decision to leave Vlad in there is defensible, if for no other reason that you don't want to take his bat out of the lineup for future at-bats. Vlad's baserunning ability matters precisely in that one outcome, right? I know because it's an elimination game, that run matters more, but I think it's at least a close call whether Scoscia is right here.

Hey, I can comment via Blackberry. Cool.

I didn't see the problem with the suicide squeeze. It's consistent with everything the Angels have done this decade, it's appropriate to the situation and the hitter, and better suicide than safety squeeze, always.

I didn't address because I didn't think it was noteworthy, I guess. The execution failed, but it was the appropriate play. Aybar really made a poor effort, however.

Now, everyone turn on ESPN. Thanks.

Peter Bourjos has a lot of speed. I think he has a 50% chance of being the CF of the future.

Anyone else think having A.J. Pierzynski hit in the 2 hole was a huge tactical error by Ozzie Guillen? How about getting Ken Griffey's OBP in front of the power core, or even jumping straight to the pop by going Cabrera-Dye-Thome-Konerko?

It was suicide and now wait til next year. Angels had Boston right were they wanted them and they played Russian roulette.

The Angels will be different next year . . . I hope. Did anyone notice that Kendrick didn't seem to have his full range of motion. This is a UTK question, but doesn't a hamstring injury affect lateral movement? Jed Lowrie's ball doesn't get by a healthy second baseman. Personally, I think Kendrick single handedly lost the series for the Angels. He had multiple defensive miscues and left over a dozen men on base without scoring one. My prediction is Sean Rodriguez will be the full time second baseman next year. His glove work was amazing this year and if Kendrick can't hit or stay healthy, there is no place in the lineup for his very average/possibly below average defensive skills. Also, for you east coast bums - next year Brandon Wood will emerge as a very good every day player. I close with the classic: Wait until next year!

Everyone keeps harping on the Angels' weak competition, yet during the season the Angels commentators kept telling me that their record was actually better against better teams. And while I cannot find THAT split so far, the Angels were 30-16 against the ALE, the best record in the league.

Joe: I think the solution to "solving" the NLDS is to simply make them best-of-7. Frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet, unless the players are balking at the possibility of playing 2 more games.

Now, if we could convince MLB to go back to best-of-nine for the World Series with minimal rest....

The Angels were 14-4 vs Bos and Balt. 16-12 vs TB, NYY and Tor combined. Let's throw the regular season 8-1 record vs Bos out the window and playing Balt was the equivalent ALW opponent, young, one dimensional and a club they SHOULD beat. I think its fun to talk about how team's fared in the regular season but it really doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Bos played better in all phases of the game and that's why they advanced to the LCS.

I love the best of 9 format! As far as I'm concerned the more baseball the better.

Also, I'd be in favor of the LDS going to a 7 game series only if they had less days off. It really shouldn't take 10 days to play a 7 game series or 8 days to play a 5 game series which would have been the case of the Angels won last night.

Joe, I'm surprised you don't take any issue with the suicide squeeze. As the first poster pointed out, it surprised no one and the situation (although not the hitter himself) was about as bad as possible; hard throwing righty on the mound and lefty at the plate. Why not give Kendrick, Aybar/Wood and Figgins each cracks at getting Willits home? Isn't that a far higher percentage strategy than putting all your figurative chips in the equally figurative suicide squeeze basket (assuming that was the plan from the start)?

(Or putting all of your eggs on the table, I guess. Pretty stellar Comments debut by me, huh?)

One thing no one is mentioning on the suicide squeeze attempt is the job Willits did at 3B. He can fly and didn't tip off at all that it was a squeeze. He got to his primary lead, took a hop, and took off at a point the pitcher couldn't adjust where he was throwing the ball (almost at the pitcher's release point--from the TBS high-angle replay). It might be a little late for a slower baserunner but because of Willits's speed he could afford to be patient. The pitch was adequate enough to get down: fastball, middle-in, around the belt to a good bunter. You could argue that hitting for Aybar was the play, but if let Aybar hit, then I think having a good bunter bunt to get a one run lead with 3 outs to go is a smart play. Anything but a rocket back to the mound gets the run and the game to Rodriguez. I'd take my chances there. It didn't work because of one man's execution, not because of the call.

The call for the squeeze was a absolutely indefensible maneuver, no matter how many times Scioscia has gotten it to 'work' in the past. You don't waste an out to get a man to third (low risk) just to try an insanely high risk move like a squeeze with the next batter. It's utterly illogical and the chances of scoring that run with 1 out aren't remote high (especially with a speedster like Willits on third). It's clear that if he's moving on contact on that grounder to first base, Willits scores that run.

As for Varitek tag, he made the tag, the runner is out, then V-tek fell down and the ball popped loose. Once the tag is made and ball control is confirmed (as it was by the ump) the play is over.

How is it indefensible? If a good bunter who has 1 hit in the series, has little fly ball power, and has been late on fastballs all series is facing the infield in during the 9th inning of a tie game gets the bunt down anywhere, the run scores and the Angels are up 1 with 3 outs left. Just because a squeeze in the 2nd inning might not be a good idea, and "small ball" tactics aren't generally good ideas early in the game, it does not mean that a squeeze in the 9th inning with a bad hitter/good bunter/good defensive SS is a bad play. It was the right play for the situation. The execution was poor. I'll take my chances up 1 in the bottom of the 9th inning with Rodriguez on the mound against the middle-bottom of the Red Sox order. I like the odds of Aybar getting a bunt down on the ground anywhere over hitting a groundball through the infield or a fly ball deep enough to score the run (or get his 2nd hit of the series). Unless it's a slowly hit ball, Willits isn't scoring on a ball to an infielder with the infield in. Those extra 3-4 steps he gets while the ball is traveling to the plate on the squeeze is huge.

According to BBtN ("When Is One Run Worth More Than Two?"), with a runner on third and one out, you have a 66.1% chance of scoring. Weigh that against the probability of Aybar successfully executing the bunt and Willits making it home. C'est tout.

(Note that Scioscia could have pinch hit for Aybar. That he didn't do so suggested that the suicide squeeze was indeed coming.)

I guess my overall point is that random player has a 66.1% chance to get the run in, but not necessarily Aybar right then and there in that situation. He looked bad all series long. I think it's a rational decision to have him bunt and keep him in for defense. If you pinch-hit for Aybar, you lose his defense. That being said, I wouldn't have minded hitting Morales there (Wood's lack of contact would have worried me) either.

I thought the squeeze was ridiculous at the moment.

All this talk about Scioscia overlooks the decison to not bring in Papelbon by Francona to face Guerrero. If the Angels had won this game, that is the decision we all would be debating. And if the Angels won game 5, it would rival Grady Little's finest moment.

Opinions about the advisibility of a suicide squeeze depend on the odds that it will work. From the previous comments, I saw no reference to data-derived odds of past success. Do they exist, someplace?

lmmccray: I didn't have any data to back up my statement, it's true, but doesn't baseball common sense dictate that a squeeze is riskier: Here are the 2 negative outcomes: a) out at home after bunt- highly unlikely, granted b) missed bunt and out at home - definitely the most likely- are the

Letting Aybar hit (as well as the next hitter) gives 2 chances at plating Willits, including at LEAST 1 chance where virtually almost any type of out, even on the infield, scores that run. There's also the slim chance of scoring on a possible passed ball/wild pitch?

I was truly stunned to see the Angels attempt it.