Rapada called up, Murton sent down

[Iceblink]

Right on. I like Murton, but he's hit and produced runs about as well as Izturis has. For all the talk about how Fontenot has more RBIs than Cesar, he's also got more than Murton put up.

 

A corner outfielder has to produce runs - either by driving them in or scoring them. Matt wasn't doing either...and was playing a bad RF.

 

Floyd and Murton have almost exactly the same number of plate appearances. Murton had one more run scored, but Floyd has 25 RBI to Murton's 8, and Floyd has a .788 OPS to Murton's .667. I know Floyd is an older player who can adjust to part-time work better, but this offense isn't good enough to let Murton find himself again. Piniella didn't really have a choice.

 

This is a perfect example of using statistics badly to prop up a weak premise.

 

Murton has played poorly at times. However, Murton's been given sporadic, inconsistent playing time and a handfull of ABs. There is no reason to try to bring in numbers to prop up an extremely lame argument. They don't give the opinion any more validity at all.

 

And just for future consideration; RBI are at least partly dependent on your teammates and where you bat in the order.

 

My premise is that Murton has done nothing to justify playing in front of Floyd. I think every stat backs that up. I wish Murton was playing every day and playing well. Murton has been given almost exactly the same number of at bats as Floyd. Sure, it would have been better if they came more steadily, but they're close enough to where the stats are entirely relevant.

 

As for the RBI argument, Murton has fewer opportunities, to be sure. However, he's done nothing in those situations. More stats to prop up my weak premise:

 

Bases empty: Murton-.274/.346/.342; Floyd-.220/.304/.300

Runners on: Murton-.208/.308/.326/; Floyd-.373/.420/.493

RISP: Murton-.192/.300/.308; Floyd-.425/.489/.650

RISP/2 outs: Murton-.077/.200/.077; Floyd-.389/.476/.611

 

Murton doesn't add much of anything defensively over Floyd, and his baserunning was generally pretty bad, as well. What reason is there to play him over Floyd, other than the fact that Murton is younger and had a nice year in 2006?

 

Sure, he'd probably do better with regular playing time. So would almost anyone. This is a new manager, and a team with a spotty (at best) offense. It's up to Murton to produce well enough or play defense or run the bases well enough to earn play in a corner OF spot. He hasn't done it - not even remotely.

[CubinNY]

Right on. I like Murton, but he's hit and produced runs about as well as Izturis has. For all the talk about how Fontenot has more RBIs than Cesar, he's also got more than Murton put up.

 

A corner outfielder has to produce runs - either by driving them in or scoring them. Matt wasn't doing either...and was playing a bad RF.

 

Floyd and Murton have almost exactly the same number of plate appearances. Murton had one more run scored, but Floyd has 25 RBI to Murton's 8, and Floyd has a .788 OPS to Murton's .667. I know Floyd is an older player who can adjust to part-time work better, but this offense isn't good enough to let Murton find himself again. Piniella didn't really have a choice.

 

This is a perfect example of using statistics badly to prop up a weak premise.

 

Murton has played poorly at times. However, Murton's been given sporadic, inconsistent playing time and a handfull of ABs. There is no reason to try to bring in numbers to prop up an extremely lame argument. They don't give the opinion any more validity at all.

 

And just for future consideration; RBI are at least partly dependent on your teammates and where you bat in the order.

 

My premise is that Murton has done nothing to justify playing in front of Floyd. I think every stat backs that up. I wish Murton was playing every day and playing well. Murton has been given almost exactly the same number of at bats as Floyd. Sure, it would have been better if they came more steadily, but they're close enough to where the stats are entirely relevant.

 

As for the RBI argument, Murton has fewer opportunities, to be sure. However, he's done nothing in those situations. More stats to prop up my weak premise:

 

Bases empty: Murton-.274/.346/.342; Floyd-.220/.304/.300

Runners on: Murton-.208/.308/.326/; Floyd-.373/.420/.493

RISP: Murton-.192/.300/.308; Floyd-.425/.489/.650

RISP/2 outs: Murton-.077/.200/.077; Floyd-.389/.476/.611

 

Murton doesn't add much of anything defensively over Floyd, and his baserunning was generally pretty bad, as well. What reason is there to play him over Floyd, other than the fact that Murton is younger and had a nice year in 2006?

 

Sure, he'd probably do better with regular playing time. So would almost anyone. This is a new manager, and a team with a spotty (at best) offense. It's up to Murton to produce well enough or play defense or run the bases well enough to earn play in a corner OF spot. He hasn't done it - not even remotely.

 

The point is that the numbers you are posting are meaningless. Murton's had 100 or so ABs spread out over two months of sporatic playing time. They tell you nothing that you don't already know and are predictive of little.

 

There is nothing wrong with your opinion, although I disagree. The data your are presenting does nothing for you.

[Iceblink]

Right on. I like Murton, but he's hit and produced runs about as well as Izturis has. For all the talk about how Fontenot has more RBIs than Cesar, he's also got more than Murton put up.

 

A corner outfielder has to produce runs - either by driving them in or scoring them. Matt wasn't doing either...and was playing a bad RF.

 

Floyd and Murton have almost exactly the same number of plate appearances. Murton had one more run scored, but Floyd has 25 RBI to Murton's 8, and Floyd has a .788 OPS to Murton's .667. I know Floyd is an older player who can adjust to part-time work better, but this offense isn't good enough to let Murton find himself again. Piniella didn't really have a choice.

 

This is a perfect example of using statistics badly to prop up a weak premise.

 

Murton has played poorly at times. However, Murton's been given sporadic, inconsistent playing time and a handfull of ABs. There is no reason to try to bring in numbers to prop up an extremely lame argument. They don't give the opinion any more validity at all.

 

And just for future consideration; RBI are at least partly dependent on your teammates and where you bat in the order.

 

My premise is that Murton has done nothing to justify playing in front of Floyd. I think every stat backs that up. I wish Murton was playing every day and playing well. Murton has been given almost exactly the same number of at bats as Floyd. Sure, it would have been better if they came more steadily, but they're close enough to where the stats are entirely relevant.

 

As for the RBI argument, Murton has fewer opportunities, to be sure. However, he's done nothing in those situations. More stats to prop up my weak premise:

 

Bases empty: Murton-.274/.346/.342; Floyd-.220/.304/.300

Runners on: Murton-.208/.308/.326/; Floyd-.373/.420/.493

RISP: Murton-.192/.300/.308; Floyd-.425/.489/.650

RISP/2 outs: Murton-.077/.200/.077; Floyd-.389/.476/.611

 

Murton doesn't add much of anything defensively over Floyd, and his baserunning was generally pretty bad, as well. What reason is there to play him over Floyd, other than the fact that Murton is younger and had a nice year in 2006?

 

Sure, he'd probably do better with regular playing time. So would almost anyone. This is a new manager, and a team with a spotty (at best) offense. It's up to Murton to produce well enough or play defense or run the bases well enough to earn play in a corner OF spot. He hasn't done it - not even remotely.

 

The point is that the numbers you are posting are meaningless. Murton's had 100 or so ABs spread out over two months of sporatic playing time. They tell you nothing that you don't already know and are predictive of little.

 

There is nothing wrong with your opinion, although I disagree. The data your are presenting does nothing for you.

 

Well, if the point of the argument is that Murton should play over Floyd in RF regardless of how they've performed, then yes, the numbers I'm posting are meaningless.

 

If the most basic numbers that show how the players have performed are meaningless, then there's no argument at all.

 

The start/sub patterns, at least visually, don't look that different to me:

Murton &

Floyd.

 

Sure, it's not Murton's fault that the lineup is RH-heavy and has 4 or 5 guys who are #2 hitters like he supposedly is (though he's hit best in the #6 spot this year). It is his fault that he's hit terribly in run-producing situations. Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

[soapy]

Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

 

When you're talking about a 25 year old who put up respectable numbers the last two years, not to mention his minor league career (better than the guy(s) replacing him) who has struggled for about 100 sporadic at-bats...yes.

[Iceblink]

Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

 

When you're talking about a 25 year old who put up respectable numbers the last two years, not to mention his minor league career (better than the guy(s) replacing him) who has struggled for about 100 sporadic at-bats...yes.

 

If we were the Devil Rays or 20 games out, then sure.

 

Instead, we're a team that has both a legit shot to win its division and a fairly weak, RH-heavy lineup. Given Murton's performance at the plate, in the field, and on the bases, Floyd is and has been a better option.

 

It's up to Murton to hit his way into the lineup, even if he has to do that from the bench. It's not up to the manager to continue to start him until he does that, especially if it means a far more productive bat is on the bench.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

 

When you're talking about a 25 year old who put up respectable numbers the last two years, not to mention his minor league career (better than the guy(s) replacing him) who has struggled for about 100 sporadic at-bats...yes.

 

If we were the Devil Rays or 20 games out, then sure.

 

Instead, we're a team that has both a legit shot to win its division and a fairly weak, RH-heavy lineup. Given Murton's performance at the plate, in the field, and on the bases, Floyd is and has been a better option.

 

It's up to Murton to hit his way into the lineup, even if he has to do that from the bench. It's not up to the manager to continue to start him until he does that, especially if it means a far more productive bat is on the bench.

 

The supposed RH heavy lineup is a fallacy. Anybody who has paid any attention knows this team's biggest weakness is the ability to hit LHP. It has been for a few years. They are not RH heavy.

 

There's no such thing as hitting your way into the lineup from the bench. A manager that requires such a thing from his young players is not going to get good production out of young players. Bobby Cox does it the right way, giving a guy a job and letting him hit through slumps. That's what players like Murton need.

[soapy]

Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

 

When you're talking about a 25 year old who put up respectable numbers the last two years, not to mention his minor league career (better than the guy(s) replacing him) who has struggled for about 100 sporadic at-bats...yes.

 

If we were the Devil Rays or 20 games out, then sure.

 

Instead, we're a team that has both a legit shot to win its division and a fairly weak, RH-heavy lineup. Given Murton's performance at the plate, in the field, and on the bases, Floyd is and has been a better option.

 

It's up to Murton to hit his way into the lineup, even if he has to do that from the bench. It's not up to the manager to continue to start him until he does that, especially if it means a far more productive bat is on the bench.

 

You mean like Jones has?

 

What has Murton been doing the last two years that you wouldn't consider "hitting his way into the lineup"?

 

I love double standards.

[Tracer Bullet]

Is the argument that we should ignore how bad he's been and continue to play him until if and when that changes, regardless of other options?

 

When you're talking about a 25 year old who put up respectable numbers the last two years, not to mention his minor league career (better than the guy(s) replacing him) who has struggled for about 100 sporadic at-bats...yes.

 

If we were the Devil Rays or 20 games out, then sure.

 

Instead, we're a team that has both a legit shot to win its division and a fairly weak, RH-heavy lineup. Given Murton's performance at the plate, in the field, and on the bases, Floyd is and has been a better option.

 

It's up to Murton to hit his way into the lineup, even if he has to do that from the bench. It's not up to the manager to continue to start him until he does that, especially if it means a far more productive bat is on the bench.

 

The supposed RH heavy lineup is a fallacy. Anybody who has paid any attention knows this team's biggest weakness is the ability to hit LHP. It has been for a few years. They are not RH heavy.

 

There's no such thing as hitting your way into the lineup from the bench. A manager that requires such a thing from his young players is not going to get good production out of young players. Bobby Cox does it the right way, giving a guy a job and letting him hit through slumps. That's what players like Murton need.

 

Thank you - great response to both points.