Fontenot and Patterson were competing for the LH-hitting, middle IF backup spot. Fontenot beat out Patterson for the job. If you’re going to play one of the two at 2B, shouldn’t it be the guy who WON the competition head-to-head, and not the guy that lost?

Now, I completely agree that Fontenot is not an everyday 2B. But I’m not sure Patterson is, either. I don’t think either player hits well enough to be a regular MLBer.

I understand what Piniella was thinking in bringing up Patterson and going with DeRosa in LF and Fontenot at 2B. I just disagree with it. I don’t think Fontenot OR Patterson are a good solution. Getting LH bats just to have LH bats isn’t a smart move, in my book. They need to actually be able to do something up there.

Did you not read my post? If you did, you’d realize that this has nothing to do with whether or not Murton is worthy of being a starting OFer. Instead, you repeated the same argument that I just pointed out is irrelevant to the discussion.

He’s better than Fontenot, and he’s better than Patterson. If we had a better alternative, I’d agree with playing that player. But we don’t. Hence, Murton is the correct answer for who should have been called up to replace Soriano.

I really like the great evidence you brought to the table to back up your unexaggerated arguments…

tend to be fans of Murton. So, no, I can’t explain it without bad-mouthing Piniella and Hendry a little bit.

just to clarify. I agree that Piniella doesn’t seem to care for Murton.

Piniella hasn’t figured out that small sample sizes aren’t a good basis for making permanent decisions. He seems to be fixated on Fontenot based on a great first month, despite the fact that Fontenot has been horrendous ever since that first month last year. Conversely, Murton struggled initially, and Piniella buried him.

Piniella has chosen to go with a less effective offensive player and no better a defensive player, and he’s bumped the better defensive player to the less important defensive position. It’s a bad decision.

That’s not saying Murton is a very good player. But he’s at least mediocre. Fontenot is not even mediocre.

you want LH batters to combat RHP. So the fact that Murton hits LHP better than RHP isn’t a feather in his cap in the debate over whether to add more LH bats. Now, if you said Murton hits RHP better than Patterson (which is true as well), then you’d have something.

Unfortunately, Piniella has an affection for the scrappy Fontenot, largely because Fontenot hit the cover off the ball for a month when he first came up. Well, since that great first month, he’s hitting .217/.277/.287. Frankly, I’m astounded that Piniella would prefer to play Fontenot over Murton.

Your question is lacking in information. If you see both as journeyman types, then it really doesn’t matter. I really don’t care which of Patterson and Fontenot you play. I don’t think either is going to be very good. I certainly don’t think that’s the rationale for why Patterson was in Iowa, though. I think Piniella honestly believes Fontenot is better.

In my opinion, I don’t see much of either Fontenot or Patterson. Because of that, I don’t really care which one of them plays. I am in the camp that Piniella/Hendry called up the wrong guy to begin with. Murton is the better option of the three as a regular.

Because you’re continuing to (a) misinterpret my stance, and (b) put words in my mouth. I simply pointed out that your argument that Patterson “clearly outperformed” Fontenot was ridiculous. Does that mean I think that Fontenot is a slugger? No. In fact, I don’t think Fontenot is much good at all. If you read the rest of my posts in this thread, you’ll see that.

Further, why are you trying to construe my comments into something that they are not? Simply put: in a small sample of less than 60 AB, Fontenot had a better spring. I will agree that it was not significantly better. But under NO circumstances can you convince me that Patterson outperformed Fontenot at all in spring. And you have even less chance (if that’s even mathematically possible) of convincing me that Patterson “clearly outperformed” Fontenot.

Did Fontenot clearly outperform Patterson? Maybe not. But Patterson certainly didn’t outperform Fontenot. Just because Fontenot isn’t a slugger doesn’t change that fact. The fact is, Fontenot started the spring ahead of Patterson, based on last year (in Lou’s mind, not mine). It was up to Patterson to clearly outplay Fontenot in order to win the job. Patterson failed to do so, so he got sent down. That’s the way baseball works.

I’m also not sure why you’re asking me to admit anything. I’m not a fan of Fontenot – never have been. I don’t care whether or not Patterson had a realistic chance of winning the job. It’s irrelevant to my point. My point is, and has been, that IN PINIELLA’S MIND Fontenot won the job. And because of that, it makes no sense for Piniella to leapfrog Patterson over Fontenot just because Soriano got hurt.

People have been suggesting that it makes no sense to call up Patterson and not play him. I was merely pointing out the logic. IN PINIELLA’S MIND, Fontenot is ahead of Patterson. Therefore, if he’s choosing whom to play at 2B, he’s going to choose Fontenot.

And again, the difference in 15 points in OBP is ONE additional time on base. That’s more than offset by the difference in SLG. Yes – OBP is undervalued slightly by OPS. But being 100 points better in SLG is worth more than 15 points better in OBP.

I probably shouldn’t post this, as it lends itself to continuing an irrelevant argument. You’ve continued to miss my point, so arguing about the value of OPS in less than 60 AB isn’t going to change that. Hopefully, my other post will.