I saw the argument in the game thread....

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53600:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:45 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 30 2009, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53595:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 30 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53589:date=Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 30 2009, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->this is getting boring.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, especially since most everyone else believes that the fault lies in Fontenot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The result doesn't justify the decision. If it did, there would be no argument against my side of the discussion.

You know what's funny about your comment? Most everyone believes that using Fox instead of Fontenot was the better move.

So there's that, too.

Now...go fuck a toaster. Plugged in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I even think we should have used Fox in that situation. But we didn't and the play selected (one that was perfectly fine and within the scope of Fontenot's ability) wasn't executed. The play wasn't executed. The play wasn't executed.

And I'm not going to go into what <i>might</i> have happened in Fox's at-bat because A) BT has already pwned you thoroughly there and [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] it never happened so it's pure speculation.

So you can go ahead and argue about things that didn't happen and can't be proven, while I'll continue to contend that the play that was called, that happened in reality and not the hypothetical world of the baseball conscious was poorly executed by the person called upon to do so.