As he always has done, Soriano voiced a willingness to go along with Piniella, even though he prefers to bat first. Last year in the third spot, Soriano was 5-for-28 (.179). He was 0-for-8 batting fifth, but he was a .308 hitter batting leadoff.
Last season Soriano batted third in Derrek Lee's absence and hit only .179 in seven games (compared to .308 as leadoff).
28 at bats, eh? Well, here's to the first 54 at bats of Bo Hart's career, or the first 83 at bats of Clint Barmes' 2005. I know I'm likely preaching to the choir here, but there's nothing like cherry picking stats to make a point, or in this case, being too damn lazy to look up something more substantial. Not to mention the fact that they're trying to imply that Soriano will fail in the second spot because of how he performed in the third spot.
Of course, what really weirds me out is the fact that the Sun-Times made no mention of Soriano's batting order splits in 2007, qualifying Gordon Wittenmeyer as a beacon of enlightenment, which makes me question, not just the meaning of 'enlightenment', but of all words ever uttered by man.
But I digress. After going to BB-REF and performing a search on 'Soriano', I was two laborious clicks away from the information outlined below.
Position in Order
That's Soriano's whole career, folks, not just 28 at bats in the middle of a season, and, oh, the journey of suffering and tears it took to get me there. As for the data itself, there are only three spots where he's got enough at bats for me to want to draw any sort of conclusion, and even with those I don't see much there, there. Is there a difference between the first, third, and fifth spots? Sure. Enough to make me assign causality, especially when considering that the last two years of his career, which you could argue are his two best, were spent almost entirely in that first spot in the order? No. So how you decide to do that using 28 at bats is beyond me, even if by this point, I should be used to such failures.