| re: Question 30+ years old. Seeking answers! | |
|
Posted by: |
Vin 02:56 am UTC 06/18/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Question 30+ years old. Seeking answers! - Marklbetya 11:42 pm UTC 06/17/09 |
| Hmmmmmm........ Clearly Jim intended it this way, you know, for the comparative functionality vis a vis the extended baseball / foreplay metaphor. To wit, just as the suicide squeeze is an exciting play (arguably the MOST exciting), if its executed at the wrong time, or in the wrong situation, well then, what the fuck??? I mean, right??? So following through metaphorically, if the dude went for the wrong move in the backseat, or the RIGHT move, the most exciting move ("The Shocker," anyone?) but at the wrong time, then the girl gives him the ol' "What the fuck, boy?" Maybe that's why she held him up in the first place; he went for the suicide squeeze when the moment just wasn't right. At which point he had to talk himself into eternal commitment just to get it wet. Maybe, had he judicially foregone the suicide squeeze, accurately judging the circumstances to be less than ideal, and gone for a more appropriate, if less exciting, play, the whole thing would have gone smoother, she wouldn't have abruptly stopped him, and before she knew what hit her, he'd have slipped one across the plate. Jim has probably been waiting 25 years for somebody to pick up on this. :) > > Two down, nobody on, no score, bottom of the ninth (at the > beginning). > > One man on third, still with 2 out when the squeeze is > executed. The suicide squeeze is about as exciting a > play as there is in baseball, but it doesn't make sense > with 2 outs. > > Wait. Aren't there two on, and NOBODY out??? > > > > > No. A serious logistical question about the baseball > > > interlude in Paradise. > > > > > > > Is this some sort of crazy spy code? > > > > > > > > > Why would you do a suicide squeeze with two outs? Isn't > > > > > that really bunting for a single? Throw to first! | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Question 30+ years old. Seeking answers! - Marklbetya 11:42 pm UTC 06/17/09 |
| Next: | re: Question 30+ years old. Seeking answers! - Marklbetya 12:25 pm UTC 06/18/09 |
| Thread: |
|