Analyzing a situation doesn't mean you take cheap shots when not warranted, and it also means that you think critically, not be critical. Thinking critically, you would say that Aramis is playing through pain and thus shouldn't be expected to run flat out to 1B on a ground ball to third. His bat is more important that making it a close play, given the risk. Critical thinking tells you that Murton has command of the zone, and thus could be a valuable ML player, and at the very least is the best option in the OF right now when put against Holla and Macias. Critical thinking tells you that it's stupid to call up a guy who's missed 9 weeks with a bad ankle injury just for the sake of it. Critical thinking. Not just criticism. I realize that one makes for better talk radio, but I'm tired of people taking Stone's word for gospel. It's not, and it's seeming more and more obvious that he has a big axe to grind with this organization. Excellent post and very well said. His bitterness isn't hidden by his claims of objectivity. Please show me Bruce Levine's career MLB stats. Thank you. The vitriol is getting a little thick in here. LOL @ the critical thinking reference. Critical thinking means not jumping to conclusions about Murton either way. I agree, but, thinking critically about Murton tells you that, even if he hits .200 against RHP, his #'s against LHP and overall plate discipline would be a much better option than Hollandsworth or Macias were last week. And as far as Bruce Levine's MLB stats, Jerome Holtzman, Bruce Miles, Jayson Stark, Peter Gammons, George Ofman, and countless others beg to differ with the assertion that you have to be a former MLB player to be an effective analyst. And Joe Morgan, Steve Lyons, Bobby Valentine, Tim MacArver, and countless others serve as excellent examples of why former athletes are lousy analysts.