So, Again, About Those Intentional Walks...

They are THEE most backwards way of getting outs in all of baseball.

"Man, I don't know, this hole is getting pretty deep. Have you thought of a way we can get out of here? It's getting too deep to climb out."

"Well, with the tools we have - namely shovels - I propose that we just keep digging!"

"Sir, you are currently down $12,000, are you sure you want to keep playing?"

"Well, you see, all I need at this point is for the wheel to land on black 5 times in a row, and if I keep betting everything I have then I'll be out of that hole in no time!"

"Sir, the producers of Cutthroat Island need just $20 million more to finish the project."

"Well by all means give it to them! I cannot WAIT to get this movie out into theaters so we can start printing money!"

Please. Do not intentionally walk the opposition anymore, Bruce Bochy. It makes zero sense in almost any situation. Using similar words but flipping them around, here is another way of saying it: It almost never makes any sense. Never ever.

When there are men on base, the solution to that problem is NOT to put another one on base without even attempting to get him out. But to do it TWICE in ONE INNING!? Come on!!

Intentional walks just confuse me in general. Why do they exist? Why throw 4 pitches way far outside so a guy can have a base free of charge? Why not just give him 4 really crummy pitches? Not so crummy that they bounce to the backstop, or so crummy that the batter crushes one, just bad, lousy pitches. Throw him some junk inside, throw him something at his head. What's the worst that can happen? He swings, makes bad connection on a bad pitch. You might get him out. There is at LEAST a small chance of getting him out. When you IBB him, you have zero chance. Unless he somehow punches an umpire on the way to first base.

And also, I like Mike Fontenot. When he did well in a game during the regular season, I cleverly dubbed him "Fonte-YES". By clever I mean I was happy that the Giants won and I was stupidly giddy. Fonte-yes.

But despite Pablo Sandoval's recent slumps, Fontenot is not better than Pablo Sandoval. It is nice to have Mike Fontenot on the Giants. He is a utility guy who can play below average-to-so-so defense all over the infield. He is not a defensive replacement. Pablo Sandoval is a better 3rd baseman than Fontenot. He actually had a really good year at 3rd base. Yeah, he makes some wild throws sometimes. Sorta like Mike Fontenot...

Fontenot is not a power threat. He had one homerun this season. Now, crazy things happen in the postseason. Cody Ross becomes the greatest Giant in the history of Giants. Scott Podsednik hits game-winning homeruns. But lets be realistic.

Pablo is a better defender, despite a less productive season than 2009 pitchers still know he can blast one, and he's a fucking panda! Let the panda romp through the championship series. The Fontenot experiment was cute and harmless but let's unleash the panda and see what happens. Starting Fontenot a third straight game will be detrimental to the Giants. Oh, and Panda had an amazing at bat in Game 2.

You're here, Giants. The odds are in your favor. No more boneheaded mistakes. No more getting outmanaged by Charlie Manuel.

7 more wins. That's all.