This afternoon was not Mike Fontenot's finest hour as a major leaguer. In fact, it was likely his worst -- he left seven men on base, coming up three times with runners on (once with the bases loaded, twice with two on) and making outs all three times. If he can get even two of those runners in, the Cubs would have been in the game at least till the seventh inning, when Ken Griffey, Jr. smacked his 596th career HR into the teeth of Chicago's typical April lake breeze off Jon Lieber, a three-run shot that turned a somewhat-manageable 5-2 game into a 8-2 rout, and the Reds beat the Cubs 9-2 this afternoon. To make matters worse, the HR came after Ryan Theriot bobbled a routine ground ball and then Fontenot failed to cover first base when Lieber got Ryan Freel to hit a comebacker. Lieber did his job -- got the first two hitters he faced to hit ground balls. The infielders failed today.
Still, you'd take two out of three every series, wouldn't you? Yes, it's nice to think "sweep" when you've won the first two, but it's hard to sweep a team, no matter how good or bad they are, or are perceived to be. The Reds have some pretty good hitters and they showed us that today -- particularly Joey Votto. Votto got two fat pitches from Ted Lilly, and hit the first one for a bases-clearing double and the second for a two-run homer. Other than that, I thought Lilly threw a pretty decent game, his best start all year (it won't show up well in the box score, of course, five earned runs in six innings); at last he had the command that seemed to elude him all spring and in his first two outings in the regular season.
The Cubs had plenty of opportunity against the fireballing Edinson Volquez, who is that typical "throws-hard-but-you're-not-quite-sure-where-it's-going" young pitcher. He walked four and gave up four hits, but thanks mostly to Fontenot, he gave up only one run; the Cubs stranded seven through four innings. Further complicating things was the fact that with two on and nobody out in the fourth, the Cubs down 3-1, Henry Blanco decided to bunt. With Lilly, a terrible hitter (.111 career), up next. If you're going to do that, lay down a suicide squeeze, which would score a run (if properly done) and leave a runner on second. According to Lou in his postgame news conference, which I heard on the radio going home, the bunt sign wasn't on.
Which raises this question: if the bunt sign wasn't on, why didn't someone talk to Blanco after the first missed bunt attempt, to tell him to knock it off? Blanco bunted foul on strike three, after which Lilly sacrificed the runners to second and third, which is where we pick up the Fontenot story again.
All this on a "bonus sunshine" day -- the forecast was for clouds all day, but the temperature at game time was 59 degrees (felt warmer, and probably was -- that reported temperature is usually the 1 pm lakefront reading, and the lake cooling hadn't gotten to the ballpark by then), with bright sunshine. About 2:00, the wind shifted from light southeast to strong northeast, and both HR -- by Votto and Griffey -- would have been far up into the bleachers on an ordinary day. Quite a number of fly balls hit in the later innings -- one caught by Reed Johnson in the 9th in particular -- got pushed in a long distance by the wind.
Good signs today: a good outing from Michael Wuertz, who has needed one. He dispatched the Reds 1-2-3 in the 9th inning, not that it mattered by that time. Reed Johnson had four hits today and played a good CF. I would imagine he'll be playing CF vs. the two Pirates LHP on Saturday and Sunday.
There isn't too much more to say about this. Some days you're just going to look bad and lose. Onward to tomorrow.
0 recs | 136 comments
Murton could have won the game
Think about it. Fonty is on the bench were he belongs. Murton is batting somewhere down in the line up. Don’t think he would have left all those runners stranded and we might have chased Volquez out early as he deserved and Lilly might have settled down. What possible good did
E-Pat give us. Another useless at bat. DeRosa can stay at 2nd where he belongs.
So yes lets keep a guy with one the best OBP on the Cubs for the last years and an MLB career BA of .296 on the farm while continuing to have players out of position and valuing “speed” and ” versatility ” over the ability to get on base , drive in runs and advance runners.
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
Maybe.
You’re a bit biased, but I can see this point.
If Patterson’s going to be on the team, why wasn’t he at 2B today? I’m guessing he will be tomorrow.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
Biased Moi ?
I can’t imagine what would give yout that impression. Seriously be careful what you wish for.
E-Pat is supposedly getting better at fielding but is still not that good. I don’t expect a lot from him at the plate either. He would be a wondeful pinch runner though.
I am very frustrated with Lou though. I will NEVER understand that you bring up an untested
INFIELDER to replace a outfielder when you have a perfectly good outfielder available
DeRosa is simply not an outfielder, Ward is a BUTCHER in the OF and Pie is not hitting much.
Even before the Murton issue I lost a lot of respect for Lou at the game Sunday. HOW DO YOU RUN OUT OF POSITION PLAYER IN THE 8th inning of tie game ? Bad managing to me. They were VERY lucky to have won that game even with the lucky call.
I still like Lou overall but I see no justification for bringing up E -Pat and stranding Murton.
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
DeRosa can handle LF.
I question the everyday performance of Fontenot. If they’re going to bring Patterson up, play him. It’s pointless to sit him.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
I disagree with your logic here...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
I see your point.
But if Fontenot isn’t capable of doing the job every day, let Patterson have a go at it, for a few days at least.
If that doesn’t work they can revisit the issue.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
My point is...
I don’t think Patterson should have been called up in the first place, and I don’t think Fontenot should be playing now, either. Murton is certainly the best hitter of the three, and it allows DeRosa to play 2B. Murton in LF and DeRosa at 2B is better, both offensively and defensively, than DeRosa in LF and Fontenot at 2B.
Given that the team made the wrong decision, though, I’m fine with giving Patterson a chance. I just wouldn’t expect any better production from him than Fontenot. There’s a reason that Patterson was in AAA and Fontenot was on the team.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Seems contradicting to me
That some people think Patterson should start over Fontenot because Fontenot had a bad game today but yet, when we’re discussing Felix Pie, who stinks every single game, he needs more ab’s and the rationale is, how is Felix supposed to hit ML pitching if he doesn’t get consistent ab’s, while the player who is actually replacing him, Johnson, is having success. Doesn’t make sense to me.
lemon20pie - April 18, 2008
Also, Fontenot had good games all week long.
Well said, lemon.
Fraggin Judge - April 18, 2008
One glaring difference...
is that Fontenot is a journeyman, while Pie is 23 and has been the top prospect in the organization. What you see is what you get with Fontenot, and what you get is not very good.
Pie is still VERY young for a regular position player, and has been fantastic at every level of the minors. A guy like that deserves more chances than a guy who just doesn’t have the same pedigree.
That’s not to say that I think Patterson should be playing, either. I think the team needs to do what is best for them in the interim. And that should have been to play Murton in LF until Soriano was healthy.
I might be willing to agree that Patterson could get a look, as he is only 25 and may have upside. But frankly I don’t see much in Patterson’s history that screams MLB regular, either.
SouthernCub - April 18, 2008
your high on murton
I think he’s a 4th outfielder…but if you think he’s such a great player, how come the cubs cant seem to find a trade partner that is willing to give up anything for murton?
cubsmania - April 17, 2008
Murton is better than Fontenot...
whether or not he’s ideally a 4th OF is irrelevant. Fontenot is a poor hitter and a poor defensive player. Murton is a solid hitter and a mediocre defensive player at a less important position.
This should not be a question of Murton’s worth relative to other LF. It should be a question of Murton’s worth relative to Fontenot’s or Patterson’s.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Matt Murton is not a major leaguer
If Matt Murton were so bloody damned talented then why can’t Jim Hendry find any takers for his services and why is he earning a living playing Triple A ball at this stage? Praise for Murton has gone WAY overboard. He lacks versatility, plays a garbage outfield, can’t run, can’t throw, can’t pinch hit and isn’t a run producer. Clearly the Cub organization (and the rest of baseball) has significantly soured on his ability to contribute at the major league level. Find another player to fall in love with folks.
MDBNIU - April 17, 2008
Sigh...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Wow
I really like the great evidence you brought to the table to back up your unexaggerated arguments…
ecbc - April 17, 2008
Holy crap I partly agree with MDBNIU.
Murton does some things very well, but not everything. I just posted a FanPost where Christina Kahrl makes most of the same points, just in different words.
northsider - April 18, 2008
I don't think anyone has ever said...
that Murton does everything very well. He does a few things pretty well (hit for average, get on base). He is mediocre at a few things (hitting for power, baserunning). The debate is whether he’ll ever develop power and how tolerable he is defensively in a corner OF spot.
SouthernCub - April 18, 2008
Ok he's a 4th outfielder
BUT WE ONLY HAVE TWO OTHER OUTFIELDERS ok 2 1/2 with Pie so he moves up the food chain
to starter while Soriano is down. I am sure Hendry had some offers for Murton but probably none worth his perceived value. However his value now is close to zero since the Cubs not calling him
up when Soriano went down pretty much screams we don’t want him for ANYTHING.
I hate to sound like I am beating a dead horse but the guy has a .296 BA over 3 major league seasons ( 2 full and one partial) so passing him over when your left fielder goes down after basically
saying he could ONLY play left field is just bizarre to me but like I said a manager who uses up
every position player by the 8th inning of a tie road game is not really thinking that well anyway.
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
I agree
Can any of the statisticians out there explain why we have a LF’er who has hit .296 in the majors and plays average defense sitting in the minors?
BlueSox - April 17, 2008
The statisticians...
tend to be fans of Murton. So, no, I can’t explain it without bad-mouthing Piniella and Hendry a little bit.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Why no Eric Patterson?
he should of been playing second today. I don’t see the big deal on Fontenot. The only plus to me for him is the fact that he is left handed.
Unique - April 17, 2008
It reinforces my belief
that Mike Fontenot doesn’t bring anything to this team other than “scrappiness,” which is a loaded term that is used to justify all kinds of injustice.
Fontenot is a utility infielder who can only play one position, second base. Just because he backs up Mark DeRosa, who can play five positions, is no reason to keep a guy with limited usefulness on the bench. Moving DeRosa to left field unnecessarily weakens us defensively.
Right now Murton should be playing left field, DeRosa should be playing second base, Eric Patterson should be backing them both up and Mike Fontenot should be in Iowa.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
As noted above...
... I think DeRosa can handle LF. We can debate whether Patterson or Murton should be here, but if Patterson IS here - which he is - he should be playing 2B.
I’m guessing you’ll see him there tomorrow.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
Or Patterson
could be playing left field.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
I see your point
Josh. Basically your saying EP deserves a spot over Fonty… and Murton should be up with the team playing left.
I agree.
Unique - April 17, 2008
DeRosa can "handle" LF
In a pinch but Murton is better LF than DeRosa and DeRosa is better 2B than Patterson or
Fontenot. IF E-Pat were likely to hit pretty well MAYBE it would be worth it but basically he is
versatile at being a below average fielder in several positions. His speed is nice but only of value if
he gets on base or if you are willing to give up a bench spot for that specialty.
We already have a young inexperienced CF who is not hitting but at least has stellar defense AND speed. You can’t sacrifice another roster spot to inexperienced young player whose greatest known skill is speed. Fontenot or Patterson , not both
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
murton
is not very good in LF…..thats the reason lou doesnt like him. He dropped that fly ball last year and lou talked in the postgame interview that day of how he would like to have players who could catch the ball on his team.
cubsmania - April 17, 2008
That was in RF...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
If Lou is going to complain about Murton not catching a fly ball,
how about Derosa badly misplaying two fly balls in one game yesterday? I’m not in love with Murton, but of the choices since Soriano went down, he’s the best we have. I get tired of this lefty righty stuff—go up there and hit the damn ball.
BlueSox - April 17, 2008
i would agree
we would probably be better off with murton in LF and derosa at 2b. I think lou has played fontenot for a couple games because he had been hitting pretty good so far this year and he likes to go with the “hot hand”. Lets just hope we get through soriano’s DL stint alright.
cubsmania - April 17, 2008
I don't think anyone is arguing...
...that DeRosa can’t handle left field. It’s left field. What we are arguing is that the Cubs have several players who are capable of handling left field roughly as well as DeRosa – in the case of Murton probably a little better.
On the other hand, what we don’t have is anyone who can handle second half as well as DeRosa; Patterson might develop into a full-time second baseman someday, but not the way the Cubs are handling them. Fontenot isn’t irredeemable, but it’s hard to see his value to a team where second basemen are more plentiful than fungoes.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
Yes
Murton, for the most part, would’ve been the logical choice for the call. And I don’t quite understand how / why Fontenot made the 25 man roster out of Spring Training.
However, I thought Patterson made sense because Lou was looking to replace a top of the order type hitter, which is what Patterson is. I’m not saying that this logic is 100% correct, but I’m saying that I understand where Lou was coming from with this decision, and I don’t entirely disagree with it. If Murton was tearing it up, I don’t see how you don’t call on him.
That being said, I have no idea why Patterson would be called up so Fontenot could start. Fontenot is just not good. He had a great June to help the team turn the season around, but that’s about it. Use him as a PH / PR / spot starter, but nothing more. If Patterson got the call, he should’ve gotten the start, either at 2B or LF (with DeRosa at the other). He should’ve hit 1 or 2 (with Johnson at the other), and I think the offense has a much better day today.
WittyUserName - April 17, 2008
According to Gary Hughes
Patterson got the call over Murton because Piniella wanted another left-handed bat.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
Does Lou bother to check stats ?
Cause Murton hits lefties even better than righties and of course Patterson is goiing to
be such a nice bat not to mention glove.
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
Hitting LHP isn't the problem...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
yes
fontenot had a bad game…..but he has helped the team coming off the bench this year. He’s hit a home run and had a bunch of other hits…I think he’s a good guy to have come off the bench.
cubsmania - April 17, 2008
Fontenot is not a good player...
Look at his numbers this year, and look at his numbers since July of last year. In 184 AB following that fantastic June of last year, he’s hit .217/.287/.277. That’s awful. And it’s not streakiness, either. He’s consistently been terrible at the plate, with .633 being his best month (so far this year).
It appears that pitchers have figured out how to pitch Fontenot. He was otherwordly for a month in June last year, but since then, he’s not been very valuable.
Has he occasionally done something productive? Sure. But over a large enough sample you can always find something positive someone has done. It’s doing good things with consistency that measures value.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Here, here
Well put.
DGU - April 17, 2008
that one ab.....
that fontenot hit a screaming line drive down the 1st base line was an eye lash from getting by. i dont think lilly made a single pitch over 90 mph? or did he? whatever he did was absolutely horrible. but hey lets go sweep the pirates and forget about this loss. Btw nice see what can happen when you dont have a minor leaguer in CF. sorry couldnt resist—nice game by reed johnson.
cubsluver22 - April 17, 2008
I agree with the above post. If that line drive gets by and goes to the wall, we'd all be
singing Fontenot praises. However, back to the bigger issue… Murton should have been called up. We have one triple A left handed bat on the bench with Pie, we don’t need another. Ward can fulfill the PH role from the left side too, of course. But my Q is why didn’t we just use Soto to pinch hit instead of EPat? Being down quite a few runs, with runners on and 2 outs, at least put someone up to the plate who can hit the ball out of the yard even with the wind blowing in. Forget Righty/Lefty matchups at that point, we need a good hitter to extend the inning, not a prayer.As for Lilly, I charge 3 of his earned runs to the home plate Umpire. What a horrible display of consistency. When D Lee complains, you know he’s bad.
Well like a good closer, we need to have a short memory about this game and thank our lucky stars that Pittsburgh is coming to town for the weekend and when we play the Mets to finish the homestand we won’t see Johan. Also, the Cardinals lost so it’s not THAT bad. lol
chi-townbleacherbum - April 17, 2008
Why not Soto?
Because then who catches if something happens to Blanco. Your other catcher should usually be the last bat you use.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
What is wrong...
..with Ted Lilly? Although he looked a little better today, he looks nothing like he did last year. I know, I know, he’s just off to a slow start. Maybe he’s caught the same bug as C.C. Sabathia and Barry Zito. BTW, and I know it’s way early, but do you think C.C. is regretting not signing the extension the Tribe offered him?
calicubfan - April 17, 2008
C C has butchered my fantasy team's rotation
If he doesn’t get his act together soon, his value will continue to spiral in the wrong direction. I read somewhere his start to the season is the worse EVER for a reigning AL CY Young award winner. ESPN First Take analysts claim that CC is over-thinking. I’ve heard that before… see Rich Hill.
As for Lilly, perhaps the Nat’l League has figured him out? Hope not, but his velocity needs to raise a few mph before he is back to the same ‘ol same ‘ol.
chi-townbleacherbum - April 17, 2008
Lilly is pitching poorly AND getting unlucky.
Based upon his HR, K and BB rates, his ERA should be about 5.61 – that’s awful but not 9.16 awful. Ted’s really getting let down by his defense, which is making his struggles look worse than they really are.
That said, his BB and K rates aren’t particularly good. I don’t know if that’s a sampling issue or if there’s a mechanical problem.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
I got Lilly on my BCB Fantasy team
I won’t drop him because I like him and think he will turn it around but
for now he stays on the bench. With 17 folks in the league there is little
left around anyway .
Doggie Stalker - April 17, 2008
Not true Al
Further complicating things was the fact that with two out and nobody on in the fourth, the Cubs down 3-1, Henry Blanco decided to bunt.
Are you thinking of another inning? In the fourth didn’t DeRosa walk & Johnson hit a single so with men on at first & second and nobody out, Blanco tried to bunt them over to 2nd & 3rd but struck out? Seems reasonable to me.
Also, speaking of Johnson, if he continues hitting the way he did today the next time we see Pie in CF it just may be in Iowa.
JFCubFan - April 17, 2008
The problem is...
that the pitcher was on deck. And it didn’t appear that Piniella wanted to make a pitching change. Therefore, bunting in front of the pitcher doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Might as well try to get a hit and drive in a run, and let Lilly bunt the next AB.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
True
but only 2 runs down at that point, so not a major issue either way. As it turned out even had those runs scored, we still would have lost because of the Fontenot factor. The bigger issue is why Blanco unilaterally decided to bunt when the sign wasn’t on, as Lou reportedly said in the postgame.
JFCubFan - April 17, 2008
I suspect he thought the sign WAS on...
and simply misread the signs. I can’t imagine that Blanco thought bunting in front of the pitcher made sense.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
I miswrote that.
I meant two on and nobody out. It got transposed, I’ll fix it. The point remains - the bunt sign wasn’t on. Yes, Blanco could have gotten the runners over - for Ted Lilly, who’s a horrid hitter.
If the bunt sign isn’t on, the coaches have to let the hitter know.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
Completely agreed...
it was a botched situation all the way around. There was no reason to bunt there, so if the bunt sign was on, it was a mistake. And if the bunt sign WASN’T on, there’s no excuse for either Quade or Piniella himself to get Blanco’s attention after even the first two bunt attempts to correct the problem.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Still not sure why people think Patterson...
should be starting. Patterson lost the battle to Fontenot for a spot on the team. Therefore, Piniella feels Fontenot is better than Patterson. As such, it makes sense, if the position in question is 2B (Fontenot’s only position), that Fontenot would get the start.
The question for me is why would Lou go with EITHER Fontenot or Patterson over Murton? Having a LH bat just to have a LH bat isn’t very smart. If the LH bat can’t hit (and it’s very debatable whether either Fontenot or Patterson can hit at the MLB level at this point), it’s not worth it. Murton is the best hitter of the three, and it allows our best defensive 2B to actually play 2B.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
I totally agree.
After watching DeRo in LF yesterday, I can’t see how Lou thinks he’s putting the best team he can on the field given Soriano’s injury. If Murton hasn’t made his case to this team, for Chrissakes, trade the poor man.
BlueSox - April 17, 2008
I think DeRosa is fine in LF...
DeRosa’s defense is not the problem. I just don’t think Fontenot is worth much defensively at 2B. Conversely, DeRosa is very good at 2B. And that puts the two better bats of the four in the lineup.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Right.
DeRo played a fine LF. The wind was a major factor both last night and this afternoon. I doubt any other player - Murton included - would have done any better.
Al Yellon - April 17, 2008
Um...
...because we think Lou is wrong about Fontenot being better than Patterson.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
I'm certainly no fan of Fontenot...
but I’m not sure it’s not six of one and a half dozen of the other with respect to Patterson and Fontenot. I don’t expect big things out of either guy.
I can certainly agree that Piniella may be wrong, though – I think he jumps on small sample sizes and uses them as the gospel (just like many managers). Maybe you’re right about Patterson. But he hasn’t done all that much to impress me, either.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Okay, let's put it this way.
All other things being equal – that is to say, if you expect equal production out of two players – should you give playing time to:
1. The 28-year-old
or
2. The 25-year-old?
Mike Fontenot has, in all likelihood, peaked developmentally. Eric Patterson probably has not. And it’s absolutely senseless to leave Eric Patterson to repeat AAA a second time.
Now, I’m not advocating benching DeRosa to play Patterson, but if you’re going to play someone that isn’t Mark DeRosa at second, it really should be Patterson. If you think Patterson needs to play full-time to continue developing, whatever, let him play at Iowa and use Fontenot, who won’t develop no matter what you do, as your bench guy. But if there’s a full-time opening in the majors, you play Patterson. Or at least, that’s what you do if you’re more serious about developing young talent then you are about low-ceiling minor-league journeymen types.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
I'll take either 1 or 2...
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.
SouthernCub - April 18, 2008
LOST A BATTLE?
OK, I’m sorry to go nuts on this one, but that’s a silly thing you’ve written (and normally you’re very smart).
There was no battle. Lou simply handed Fontenot the roster spot.
In spring training, Fontenot, in 58 ABs, hit .259/.338/.483. Patterson, in 47 ABs, hit .298/.353/.383. Patterson clearly outperformed Fontenot at the plate, unless you think that the two HRs that Fontenot hit in spring training (to Patterson’s one) shows some sort of real power surge on his part.
Lou is in love with Fontenot’s “scrappiness,” which is a code word for so much bullshit that I don’t know what anyone means by it. Fontenot also has a reputation as a great teammate whereas Patterson has the reputation of the guy who oversleeps.
One can defend keeping Fontenot on the roster over Patterson, but let’s not kid ourselves and claim Patterson had a fair shot at taking Fontenot’s job in Arizona, because he didn’t.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
whoa, whoa, WHOA...
look at those stats again. Patterson CLEARLY outperformed Fontenot at the plate? Care to explain that? Fontenot had an OPS nearly 100 points higher. And that is despite a difference of .40 points in batting average. And before you go bragging about that 40 point edge in average for Patterson, remember that, over 50 AB, .40 points in AVG is a grand total of TWO additional hits. The 15 point difference in OBP is a grand total of ONE extra time on base. So I assume you think that one extra time on base is clear proof of outperforming Fontenot (especially considering Fontenot did have that 100 point edge in SLG). That’s a pretty weak argument if you ask me.
But more importantly, my point in saying that Patterson lost the battle is that, in Piniella’s mind, Fontenot was the better player. So why, if Piniella assumes Fontenot is better, why would you expect Piniella to play Patterson over Fontenot? It has little to do with performance, although I wouldn’t go suggesting Patterson has outperformed Fontenot by any means. It has everything to do with what Piniella thinks. And for some reason, he thinks Fontenot is solid.
For the record, I don’t think we’re going to see much production out of either player. I don’t think either player is much more than a backup at best right now. Maybe Patterson develops into more at the plate someday, but he’s not there yet.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Higher OPS
What, based on one extra HR in the Arizona desert? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.
Do you really think Fontenot is a power hitter with an almost .500 Slugging? You can’t believe that.
Besides, when Fontenot was struggling, didn’t Lou tell him he was going north with the team to boost his confidence? Or did I just imagine that?
And it was .080 points of OPS, not “nearly 100.” And this is why I hate OPS. A point of on-base percentage is much more valuable than a point of slugging. They should not be considered equal. (One is on a scale of zero to one. The other is on a scale of zero to four.)
Maybe “clearly outperformed” is too strong, but c’mon. Fontenot did not beat Patterson on the field. There was no “battle” for the position. Fontenot was handed the position. Admit it. Patterson was never given a chance to win the position—he was in competition with Ronny Cedeno, if that.
Josh Timmers - April 17, 2008
Slow down there buddy...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
And it was 0.85 which IS nearly 100...
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.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
uggh... typos!
.085, not 0.85, and 0.100, not 100. If it was 0.85, you certainly wouldn’t (at least shouldn’t) be arguing that Patterson outperformed Fontenot!
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Generally speaking...
...the ratio is 1 point of OBP is worth 1.8 points of slugging. (It depends on the run environment, among other things, but 1.8 is close enough – if you require any more precision, you need to start using linear weights or a dynamic run estimator anyways.)
I don’t hate OPS – it’s a good thumbnail sketch, and it relies on readily available data that I don’t have to compute myself. And it’s wildly better than batting average, so it’s something of a victory for the forces of light and good over the forces of darkness and evil. But when you’re close in OPS, you really should be using something better instead of just relying on OPS to be correct. That could be EqA, wOBA, Batting Runs… anything in that family is generally pretty good. (Batting Runs are available on a player’s Baseball-Reference.com card, EqA is available from Baseball Prospectus, and wOBA you pretty much have to hand compute.) As a bonus, EqA and Batting Runs are park adjusted for your convenience.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
Murton vs. Patterson
If Murton comes up,,,can he be sent back down in 15 days or is he out of options?? That might have factored in.
Murton was just on the pre-game show for the Iowa Cubs….class act..
cozmotaylor123 - April 17, 2008
He can be sent up and down as much as the Cubs like this year...
options work on a year-by-year basis, not on a call-up by call-up basis. Murton has already used his option for this year, by virtue of being on the 40-man roster and not on the big league roster.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
FONTE-NOT
some day’s he’s the Full Fonty. Other days (like today) he’s a Fonte-Not
mjk83 - April 17, 2008
Soriano haters..
I hope you’re all reading this post…..It shows how valuable he really is to this team….Get well soon Sori!
Bump Bailey - April 17, 2008
Agreed...
I’d much rather have Soriano playing everyday than Fontenot. That much should go without saying, of course.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
Well you can't win them all
I have a good feeling that Hill bounces back tomorrow. If not, then I don’t know what is going to happen to him…..
Chanman25 - April 17, 2008
Hope so too...
it would be nice to get the sour taste of today”s game out with a win tomorrow.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
not to hijack the thread... but im curious
Is anyone else listening to WGN radio tonight? Can anyone believe the Reds announcer went off on that topic
Madison Cub Fan - April 17, 2008
about cubs fan…. being bad
Madison Cub Fan - April 17, 2008
Smarty...
... Hey Marty Brennaman, how do you really feel about Cubbie fans?
DrCrawdad - April 17, 2008
So 18 balls=18 fans, right?
So Marty Brenneman says Cub fans are horrible because 18 fans did something stupid?
Hey Marty, 18 fans isn’t half the paid attendance in Wrigley like it is at Great American.
“You simply root against them.” Good thing you’re not a homer, Marty. As Bob Knight told Jeremy Schaap…”You’ve got a long way to go to be as good as your dad.”
Bildo1805 - April 17, 2008
Thanks for this, DrC.
Hadn’t seen this anywhere else.
northsider - April 18, 2008
Great re-cap!
I had to follow the game via Cubs Cubicle writer and it’s hard tot ell with that guy sometimes….Blanco’s bunt doesn’t make any sense, maybe he saw Dusty and out of reflex he just started bunting. Some pretty bas mental errors with the bunt and the missed coverage at 1B by Fontenot..those are the kind of errors that make you cringe.
DudeVf11 - April 17, 2008
My day at the ball park.
Roundtrip South Shore tickets: $13.30
Buying that t-shirt you kinda wanted because you were sweating to death in your long sleeve shirt, only to have the winds shift as soon as you get back to your seat after changing: $30 and a 20 degree temperature drop.
Realizing that you’re a bad luck omen for the Cubs: Priceless.
Okay, I know I’m really not a bad luck omen. But it’s kinda disheartening to attend two crummy games in a row [today, and April 2nd]. Especially when the time you spend commuting to and from the game is almost as long as the game itself. And especially when you really like Ted Lilly and want to see him do well.
Oh well. On to the next.
bluebythebook - April 17, 2008
I'm not sure why the discussion is Fontenot v. Patterson.
The discussion should be about whether or not Ward plays LF or Reed Johnson does. Fontenot should never have been in the discussion. The only way I can put a positive spin on what Lou is doing is to see him sending a message to Hendry that it’s time to get a lefty-speedy leadoff man who can play the middle IF. Lou is certainly not above forcing Jim Hendry’s hand.
I think we can all agree on this – Fontenot and Theriot batting 1-2 against a RHP is the worst lineup we have seen since Corey Patterson and Neifi Perez batted 1-2. Perhaps it will be healthy in working out some frustration to really consider which is worse.
But every day Theriot plays SS he proves he’s not up to it. Is someone keeping track of how many balls get by him that a real SS would get? It seems like every game I see, he is extending innings for our pitchers as another ball goes under his “scrappy” glove. It is maddening to see Lou run Theriot out at SS and Cedeno at 2B.
This should be our lineup right now v. RHP:
Dome RF
DeRo 2B
DLee 1B
Aram 3B
Ward LF
Soto C
Pie/Reed CF
Ronny SS
DGU - April 17, 2008
Johnson is out of the equation...
At least as long as Pie is in Lou’s doghouse. Johnson is going to be the regular CF until either Pie convinces Piniella he’s ready or the Cubs do something drastic and make an acquisition. Thus, he’s not really in the LF discussion.
That said, I agree that Fontenot/Patterson SHOULD be irrelevant. Neither should be sniffing the regular lineup. As long as Johnson is in CF, the debate SHOULD be Ward vs Murton in LF, with DeRosa at 2B. At least in my opinion. Neither are very exciting as regulars, but I like them a lot more than Patterson and Fontenot. And since we’ve been dealt a raw deal with Soriano’s injury, these are the choices we have.
SouthernCub - April 17, 2008
I'd rather have Mike Fontenot at second...
...than have Ward play a position that’s not first base for more than an inning or two. He’s like abstract art out in the field – senseless and downright offensive aesetically.
cwyers - April 17, 2008
LOL
JohnM - April 18, 2008
But it's LF...
You can be a butcher in LF and it doesn’t hurt all that much. If you have an OPS of around .600 or less in the leadoff spot, that hurts MUCH worse. I think I’d rather have Ward in LF, actually. Ward’s bat more than makes up for his liability at a low-impact defensive position compared to the noodle bat of Fontenot.
SouthernCub - April 18, 2008
Ward in left
Gosh, just my opinion but I would not like to see Ward in the outfield at all. I laugh everytime I see that big belly out there. If he doesn’t hit, he’s less than useless..
wicubfan - April 18, 2008
He's a defensive liability for sure...
but he DOES hit. And he hits so well that he makes up for his defensive liabilities, at least when compared to Fontenot.
SouthernCub - April 18, 2008
I agree
with your analysis of Lou not being willing to play Pie in CF for at least the next few days. I do think that it’s pretty obvious when you compare configurations that
Pie in CF
Johnson in LF
DeRo at 2B
is superior at every level to
Johnson in CF
DeRo in LF
Fontenot at 2B.
DGU - April 17, 2008
Hmmmm....
So, i’m late in here…heard the Brennerman audio…..maybe the REDS are not worth rooting for? Baseballs be damned, the Cubs are head and shoulders above the Reds…
Fontenot detractors, where were y’all when he was hitting the last two games? He may not be our best option but he ain’t the worst, either…
And, I have seen no posts about the HP umpire calling ankle high strikes one inning and calling the same pitch a ball later in the count. Damn, humans are truly fallable but keep the zone constant. Derrek didn’t know what was a strike or a ball today…
Murton is still an AAA player….his slugging % is the same as his average….
crazymountain - April 17, 2008
For some reason when I try to reply to the Brenneman post....
it sends my comment all the way to the bottom.
Anyway….watching the TV version of the game, you’d barely know that this happened. Bob brought it up and started to count the balls as they came in, but then quickly stopped. The cameras never showed it, and nothing about it was mentioned again.
From watching the game on TV, I kinda got the feeling, that because it was kind of a delay for a ball to come back out from Sheffield, the bleacher fans got impatient…..and maybe a couple of people, actually in the bleachers, got the same idea at the same time and threw one back. Which just snowballed into a bunch of idiots throwing em back.
Marty’s comments of “making you wanting to root against ‘em” were just an example of the old-guy-broadcaster mentality, who’s gotten spoiled with a few winning teams sprinkled amongst a ton of really bad teams during his tenure.
If he had phrased his comments to “the token idiot fans who’s in the bleachers, just to say he/she’s in the bleachers at Wrigley”, then I’d had no problem with what he said.
The first week of the season, I sat in the bleachers for the the Thu. & Fri. games (first time in 3 years)....and nobody, NOBODY, within a 50 person radius of the 4 people I was with, knew what was happening in the game after the 4th or 5th inning.
I realize there are the regulars out there almost everyday. But you gotta admit, the majority are just sitting there for the trend factor of getting hammered, which will lead to stupid things happening on field.
So Marty’s wrong with including all Cubs fans as “someone to root against”.
Sorry if this was long, but I’m up bored and the Padres/Rockies are in the 17th inning.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
ok i realize i've commented on this a few times.
I think that the point was more that he was unprofessional…. saying that. If that is his opinion one thing to voice that on a broadcast like that, classless.
thats ok…..at least you have the game to watch. im just up and bored.
Madison Cub Fan - April 18, 2008
Yeah... that was my point
then I just started rambling….
By the way…. the Rockies have broken through in the 22nd inning & are now 3 outs away from winning one long ass game
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
I Heard Comments on WLW Wednesday
I was listening to WLW Wednesday night on my way back from a college game in Jackson, TN and heard the comments as they happened. Marty did paint with a broad brush concerning Cubs fans being the most obnoxious in the NL. Yes, Marty, the ball throwing fans were “obnoxious”. That’s still not mature on Marty’s part for wanting to root against a team because of some “obnoxious” fans. He also said something like “At the end of the day, they’ll find a way to screw it up, because they’re the Chicago Cubs.” I suppose that means the “obnoxious” fans are responsible for the Cubs’ long World Series drought. I still like Marty, but I feel his frustration over the Reds’ lack of success in the 21st century has gotten to him.
memphiscub - April 18, 2008
Well, just skimmed down a couple of posts..
and saw that Al & various others’ comments pretty much said what I just repeated….that’ll teach me to go a couple days without checking out this site.
Anyway, the Padres/Rockis are now in the 18th inning. I’m hoping I get to see Maddux hafta pitch somewhere around the 23rd inning.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
i was surfing espn and saw the box score…. no runs until the 13th inning??? That would have help my insomia.
Sorry you didnt get to see Maddux pitch LOL
Madison Cub Fan - April 18, 2008
14th inning...
and I started watching cause it was scoreless in the 7th…. it’s over now Rockies win 2-1 in 22.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
wow… how long was the game? the box score hasnt updated that yet
Madison Cub Fan - April 18, 2008
Official time...
6 hours 16 minutes….but I think somewhere around the 17th or 18th inning one of the Padres annoucers said that this game was the fastest 17th or 18th inning game in history. So… I guess it should’ve been longer in time.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
Just a question for Al
Do you buy enough blank scorecards in case there’s a 22 inning game at Wrigley? ha.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
You laugh, but..
... I keep blank scoring pages in my backpack, just in case.
Al Yellon - April 18, 2008
one last comment on padres/rockies
Poor Peavy 8 shut out innings, with only a handful of hits…. and end up w/ a no decision and use 6 other pitchers. and still lose.
bite your tongue on the thought of a 22 inning marathon. lol
sorry for turning this into a middle of the night padres/ rockies thread.
Madison Cub Fan - April 18, 2008
OT: Late night laugh
This is totally off topic but I got a kick out of it and thought I’d pass it on for anyone who is still up and looking for a laugh.
Last night John Edwards was on “The Colbert Report” and did a parody of Colbert’s “last word” segment but his was called “EdWords”. It’s not (too) political, which is why I thought it’d be ok to pass along here at BCB:
EdWords
lemon20pie - April 18, 2008
Umm
I’m torn between wanting my political leaders to be the no-nonsense type of leaders…...and having a kickass sense of humor to do something like that.
Yeah. That was funny.
MillsChC - April 18, 2008
Also OT
Stewart and Colbert rock. If I ever get to NYC again seeing a daily show taping would be near the top of my list.
Madison Cub Fan - April 18, 2008
OT: Urlacher considering retirement
He wants more money, but he could request a trade or retire due to injury if he doesn’t get it.
Once again the Bears are being cheap with their players.
Chanman25 - April 18, 2008
here's the website if you care
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mulligan/901866,CST-SPT-bear18.article
Chanman25 - April 18, 2008
First of all....
He is not going to retire. He wont get paid if he does.
Second, has Urlacher said anything, or is it all his agent? This seems like an agent move.
HIGGY - April 18, 2008
What an idiot Urlacher is.
The Bears aren’t being “cheap”, as Chanman said. Urlacher wants more money? Sorry, pal. You signed an above-market deal years ago. If that’s not above market now, you shouldn’t have signed it.
I swear, the greed of some professional athletes is mindboggling.
Al Yellon - April 18, 2008
yes but
he probably didn’t have to pay alimony and child support when he signed the deal. I don’t feel sorry for him or any other player that wants a “new contract” when their existing one has not been completed yet. I’m not able to go to my boss and tell her that I’m going to sit out a few days until they agree to a higher salary. Technically we can always ask for a raise but we can’t threaten to not go to work if they don’t agree. It’s nonsense that it’s allowed in sports, period. Since the number of athletes that do this in every sport, every year seem to be increasing, they should just hand out 1 year deals and eliminate the problem.
tony412 - April 18, 2008
That's what Charlie Finley wanted MLB owners to do...
... in the late 70’s—make EVERYONE a free agent every offseason. That would have kept salaries way down. The owners shot the idea down.
Al Yellon - April 18, 2008
The problem
is that, unlike baseball, the football player’s contract isn’t guaranteed. There is guaranteed money, but beyond that the contract is not guaranteed. I am by no means supporting what Urlacher is doing, but if the Bears thought that he was getting too old or slow and didn’t want him on their team, they could just release him and not have to pay him the remaining years of his contract. For the players, the motivation is then to get as much money as they can whenever they can get it. If that means threatening to retire, etc. its the only way they can have money guaranteed to them.
gwood - April 18, 2008
This is exactly my thoughts
This is why I don’t care what name is on the jersey, just the helmet! It amazes me that these guys can find ways to be pissed off that they are “only” making $55 million over 9 years while people are foreclosing on their homes at historical rates and walking to work because they can’t afford to fill their tank up with gas.
McRipper - April 18, 2008
He's got 4 years left on his deal!!!
and he is in the top 3 in LB salaries in the NFL…he doesn’t deserve a new deal. He is being greedy, petulant and selfish.
This guy has been handed the keys to Chicago and continually flips the proverbial middle finger and his fans.
Quit fathering children out of wedlock and whining about your deal and play the football you committed to playing for the Bears
JB 23 - April 18, 2008
while I do think the Bears are a cheap organization
I do think Urlacher is greedy after all I have read about this topic. Its redicuolous to want more money!
Chanman25 - April 18, 2008
no question the Bears are cheap...but on this one, I will defend them...
JB 23 - April 18, 2008
Once again, confirmed: the Cubs need a leadoff hitter.
Soriano, Murton, Fontenot; they’re not the answer. We need a high OBP guy in that spot, with some quickness.
Fraggin Judge - April 18, 2008
We have him
But he’s hitting in the 5 spot right now.
Ihatethecards - April 18, 2008
Oops
you’re right, but Lou said yesterday he’s happy with Fuke in the 5th spot, so it’s not gonna happen.
Canadian Cubs Fan - April 18, 2008
I agree
When fonzie is back, they need flipped in the order.
Ihatethecards - April 18, 2008
We have the leadoff hitter we need...
and I’m glad we’re starting to notice it. Yet we don’t use that hitter as lead-off man. Thanks for mentioning it, guys. I just didn’t want to say it.
Fraggin Judge - April 18, 2008
He's on the Orioles..
wicubfan - April 18, 2008
OT: Day game parking?
Quick question, does anyone have advice for weekday game parking?
I normally do Devry for weekends and nights, and for weekdays I’m normally coming from downtown (playing hookey from work around lunch time).
Do to a plumbing incident this morning I am at home, so we be driving to somewhere… Suggestions? I live on the northwest side if that helps at all… Would prefer to avoid my normal bus to train trip home if I can manage to park anywhere near by..
Thanks!!
bobby h - April 18, 2008
Depends on when you can leave for the game.
You can park on the street if you get there early enough (I’d say no later than 90 minutes before game time).
Otherwise you might try parking near the Fullerton L stop and taking the train from there.
Al Yellon - April 18, 2008
thanks al!
i’ll be in the bleachers as well… i’ll try and stop by to say ‘hi.’
bobby h - April 18, 2008
Nice to meet you today!
n/t
Al Yellon - April 18, 2008
In case anyone cares...
Waddle and Silvy will be interviewing Marty Brennaman w/in the hour on ESPN 1000. Should make for some interesting radio.
Jayo525 - April 18, 2008
thanks
Hammer - April 18, 2008
Great. Thanks for volunteering for a recap.
Jayo525 - April 18, 2008
Ha, OK not a prob
Hammer - April 18, 2008
Just Started
Says he doesn’t regret “a damn thing”. Apologizes to true Cubs fans. Still sounds very pissed.
tony412 - April 18, 2008
Says Cards Fans
are the best in baseball, “hands down”
tony412 - April 18, 2008
hahaha
Says Cubs only have fans all over the country because of WGN.
tony412 - April 18, 2008
only admitted
he was maybe a bit over the top, nothing else.
tony412 - April 18, 2008
2 things
1. We had an earthquake this morning – any damage to wrigley???
2. You thought we had 2 long games this week? Look what the padres and rockies just did
cubsonWGN4ever - April 18, 2008
Just falling concrete..
just kidding
wicubfan - April 18, 2008
Here's a link w/ the Brennaman audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9Kso9q_Ws
Jayo525 - April 18, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.