Ibanez in left
DMZ · June 17, 2008 at 8:29 am · Filed Under Mariners
If the org recognizes that Ibanez is terrible defensively, as some people like to argue (Baker particularly among the local press), why isn’t he in the DH mix to at least keep his aching legs marginally fresher, and particularly, why doesn’t the team send out defensive subs in late-inning situations where the game is close and he’s just batted? If they recognize that he’s a huge defensive liability out there, they haven’t taken any action on it all season.
Comments
USSM uses and recommends
Isn’t the reason why Ibañez isn’t getting defensive substitution in the late innings because the team never has a lead in the late innings to warrant a substitution?
It’s puzzling – Baker can’t be making this up given his relationship with the team so someone’s got to be telling him that they know Ibanez is a disaster. Only things I can think of is that there’s a great deal of dissention on this or that they have concluded it doesn’t really matter given how bad the team is this year.
I’m going to assume that was not a rhetorical question. The reason they haven’t done it is because they don’t want to upset Ibanez. But wait, isn’t that one of the few things managers are supposed to handle?
So either McLaren is a pushover -or he is clueless. What’s worse?
Possibly planning on trading him? Trying to sell him as a DH only might hurt his trade value…although if any of the potential trade partners saw his defense you’d think that would be worse…
An unnamed source told me the other day that Ibanez himself recognizes that he can’t play defense, but that he’s just doing what his manager tells him to.
Could there be anything to that?
enzario:
“So either McLaren is a pushover -or he is clueless.”
Those aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.
What is the status on re-signing Ibanez? I assume the team wants to re-sign the Face of the Franchise. Ibanez clearly prefers to play the outfield. Is the team accommodating Ibanez just to help with negotiations?
Ibanez was prepared to be the DH before they brought Vidro in, he’s taken defensive replacement before without complaint — if that’s the case, then the team thinks sucking defensively is less damaging than having Ibanez annoyed about not playing the field as often as he wants when there’s no evidence that he’ll be that annoyed about not playing the field and a lot of evidence that he’s okay with it.
Is McLaren living in an alternate reality?
No talent = not getting it done = not mind boggling.
I’m not going to talk about chemistry, grit or any of those unknowable “qualities” a player has or doesn’t have…but shouldn’t someone in this situation (ICHIRO!, Beltre, or Raul himself) be a “leader” right now and tell Mac that Raul is terrible and that his defense hurts the team?
Yeah, I can buy that Ibanez as a fixture in LF being part and parcel of how much this team undervalues defense more easily than I can buy that it’s due to Ibanez being some sort of enormous headcase, the more I think about it.
He probably prefers playing the field (especially since being moved to DH often must appear from a player’s perspective as a sign of the end of their career) but would move to DH if the team asked him to.
9- But they have “proven track records” so he thinks they have talent…
I think the main problem here is that they have NO CLUE about “the cliff”…they still think these washed up losers are still going to hit like they did in their primes…
Their refusal to accept that these guys just suck is what is mind boggling…
Dude:
Defense in left field doesn’t matter. Who cares if Raul is a -20 run versus average defender there? Everyone in left is a -20 run versus average defender there!!!!!!!!
/end snark (and poor math)
Seriously for a sec. Raul is a poor defender, true. Bavasi/McLaren even understand this completely. They even understand that due to environment, left field at Safeco is more akin to a premium defensive position than a place to “hide” poor leather. The truth is that, for all of these reasons, the Ms need Raul in left. They need a guy in left who doesn’t suffer from White Line Fever…..
One of the poorest word choices I’ve seen in a while. Seriously, Bavasi’s old enough to remember the 70s & 80’s, isn’t he?
When Ibanez re-signed with Seattle before the 2004 season, he was signed to play DH. He then moved back to LF the next season. Several times, Ibanez has stated he clearly prefers to play the field (and he even went to “fast” camp to improve his running). Now that he is the Face of the Franchise, he has some leverage with the organization. And the organization has a history of deferring to a star player’s defensive preference with Ichiro (even when it goes against the team’s best interests).
This is not to say that Ibanez would refuse to DH, or that Ibanez would do so but openly complain about it, or that the team properly values defense (it obviously does not), but keeping Ibanez happy may very well be a factor (at least until the contract situation is resolved).
Okay, yes, that’s all true, but Ibanez accepted moving back to DH before they traded for Vidro. He was cool with it.
I don’t see where we should think that Raul, once a DH and who was fine with being a DH again, is now, a season and change later, not fine with being a DH or being subbed out for.
Hargrove elected to use Ellison to sub out for Guillen last year, so I don’t think this is solely a problem with McLaren.
I think they do recognize that he is a problem in left, but he is the nominal team captain, so he stays in the game, on the field. That’s all there is to it.
Those nights probably aren’t very long… after all, they’ve got an early-bird special to wake up for.
19- It’s fine if he stays in the game. He just shouldn’t be in Left Field…
nominal would mean that he was named the captain but was captain in “name only” and that he didn’t actually lead.
I don’t think that’s what you mean.
#22… I suppose I meant “by default”
He was cool with it.
He said publicly that he would accept the move, but he has also publicly said that he prefers to play defense, he is an outfielder, etc. Unlike two years ago, Ibanez is now up for free agency. During contract negotiations, stupid things like office size suddenly become part of the process.
I’d really just be happy if they trade Ibanez…if they want to sell “high” they better do it soon before he gets any worse…if not, they need him at DH more than anything else…
Umm, has anyone else seen this video where Bavasi decides to torch everyone (especially Bedard) on the way out
or “de facto”
26- I read the article, but couldn’t access the video at work…sounds like a dick move…He should be mad at himself for the terrible acquisitions…
DMZ, that’s interesting about “nominal”. I used to think that. Then I ran into engineers who would refer to a “nominal” 5 volts that was really 5 volts, just not measured and calibrated precisely.
At dictionary.com there are a variety of definitions. The first says
Where putative is
, which is how I think fetish meant it.
Obviously, “putative” and “so-called” are very different, but they seem to both fall within the range of meanings for nominal.
26 – Bavasi really showed some ugliness today. He took no accountability even in his firing. I am happy that he is finally gone. Good Riddance.
might as well just said:
GOOD BYE
That’s the primary meaning I ascribe to nominal; “nominal” to me is similar to “unofficial”. I would apply other definitions, such as Derek’s interpretation, if context required. In practice, though, I avoid using “nominal” because the meaning is often imprecise.
To me fetish’s comment in #19 is perfectly fine.
The Bavasi rant gets better – he throws Bedard under the bus. The ‘guy’ he must have intensely evaluated before he traded 1/3 of the farm.
This Bavasi fiasco keeps getting worse and worse. I think we have a new Doyle who plays in Baltimore.
Maybe they can call up Dennis Raben — he was the #3 Top Play on ESPN yesterday.
Bavasi refuses to remove his beer goggles in regards to the talent and expected performance of this line up. That he still thinks, even while walking out the door, they have the ‘talent’ to do better is just sad.
It doesn’t help though when radio personalities like the Gas-Man perpetuate that flawed thinking with comments like “everyone thought Bavasi’s moves were good at the time he made them.” If one more person on KJR references Bavasi as a ‘fall guy’ I might just do something rash, like yell really loud or something crazy like that.
Ibañez in left is McLaren’s way of saying, “What fine clothes the Emperor has.” Nothing more, nothing less.
Nominal’s precise meaning in this context would be “in name only.” It’s not unclear. That would be the meaning anyone should take from that usage.
In almost any context, engineering or otherwise, the POINT of the word nominal is to separate it, in one way or another, from “actual.”
I didn’t believe the engineering use, so I looked it up. Even that usage is the same – “what is predicted without considering what deviation may occur or whether it is acceptable”; or “what is predicted plus or minus X number of standard deviations”. At best, “normal” with a caveat.
This is not a fuzzy word in common usage.
Also, apply the Mark Twain rule… if he meant any of the other definitions, then any of the other words (putative) would have been the better word to use.
I suppose it would be too much to hope that they would have Raul in the lineup as the left fielder for away games, bat him third and switch him to DH after the first half inning. He’d probably notice that even though “nominally” the starting left fielder, he was never actually in left field and then pout or take a bat to the water cooler or whatever it is that he does.
37: You can’t move a fielder to DH.
36 – um. I would like to disagree politely.
You say:
Apparently, both Steve Nelson and I are only “nominally” anyone.
If you look it up in an unbiased way at dictionary.com you will find meaning #1 is ambiguous and somewhat contradictory (as discussed before). Meanings 3,4,5,6,8,9,10 I don’t read as having the “caveat” you refer to.
Of particular interest is:
In these, like in the definition you quote, I see no caveat.
Apparently, it is a fuzzy word in common usage.
As I see it, applying the “Mark Twain rule” would result in never using the word in the situation above. Instead, for so-called or in name only, one would use so-called or in name only. For putative or de facto, one would use putative or de facto.
If you meant that Ibanez was acting as team captain in absence of an official designation thereof, “de facto” would have been appropriate to use. Maybe “putative” as well, but “de facto” would’ve been my choice.
Nominal would’ve been appropriate if he had been named the team captain but wasn’t actually acting in that capacity.
Sure, you can find other usages of “nominal” in other contexts; but in the context of what you said, “nominal” was a poor choice of word.
This is a really specialized usage that’d fall more under the idea of an agreed-upon convention within a trade rather than a formalized usage, and isn’t really relevant to what we’re discussing.
Yep. There are two above average starters in the rotation. Clearly the Ms are where they are because one of them can’t be counted upon to give more than 110 pitches-never mind that was common knowledge (as was his snarkiness with the press) going into the “trade”.
I think “Raul in left” probably sums up Bavasi’s tenure with the Ms as well as anything.
It’s pretty obvious. Raul at DH == no more Vidro, and since Mac thinks Vidro is awesome enough to bat 3rd, that’s unthinkable.
No, you are both extremely smart people that are overthinking it.
Certainly you can lawyer the defintion of almost any word to the point that it becomes essentially meaningless.
But it should be clear, in the context in which it was used, that “nominal” suggests some variation of “in name only.”
Used correctly, it isn’t confusing. Used incorrectly, as it was, it leads to confusion and/or people tweaking the definition to fit the use.
37 – Thanks, my ignorance trips up even my feeble attempts at humor. If Mr. McLaren were seriously considering it as a strategy, we could just say first base instead.
Back to the original topic… Assuming Derek was serious not asking rhetorically, my thought is that as an organization the Mariners understand that Ibanez is a poor fielder. But neither McLaren or Hargrove before him know enough about defense to understand that. They see a guy who hustles and plays hard and don’t grasp that he simply doesn’t catch balls an average LF would.
Thus the FO knows he can’t field, the manager who allocates his defensive playing time doesn’t get it. Yes the FO should “hint” to the manager that he make changes, but these are the Mariners.
Yesterday morning, in his epic pre-Bavasi-firing post, Geoff Baker noted that the front office has to be aware of Raul’s shortcomings in the field, but his opinion was that they just didn’t feel like they had a better choice in LF given the current roster construction. (”Believe me, anyone can see that Ibanez needs to be pulled out of left field.”)
I think the general idea must be along the lines of “we can’t be running Wlad and Reed out there in the same outfield every day”, which most here probably wouldn’t agree with, but sounds like the stream of consciousness we might hear from this organization if they were capable of thinking out loud.
But then they go and let Reed (and now Kenji) try on a first baseman’s glove, which proves we’re all living in Bizarro World… that’s in the other thread, of course.
40, 43 – I can see your point of view.
And, I should confess that while I begged to differ politely, in rereading my post, it looks like I then went on to be somewhat snarky. For that I apologize.
I also enjoy using “nominally” as meaning “in name only”, so I feel disappointed that it also seems to mean “putative” in common usage. If you look up the common usage definitions at dictionary.com,
1. dictionary.com #1 lists “in name only; so-called; putative” together, even though they are contradictory
2. American Heritage #2 says “Existing in name only.”
3. Websters #1 says “actual” meaning real and #3 says “in name only” meaning not real.
I’m with eponymous…I think the big problem is Mac’s secret man-crush on Vidro. Those big, sexy batting averages of yore. That musky professionalism. His dreamy above-team-average OPS with RISP. While everyone in the world knows he should be DFA’d, Mac would freakin’ marry the dude if he could.
I don’t think you really have anything to apologize for tone-wise, hoser; and I agree that sometimes the definitions of things like nominal and putative get closer in common usage than they maybe should.
I just think nominal was a poor choice in this particular situation, but no real harm done.
And hoo boy are we off-topic.
Here’s the thing about the assertion that they understand Ibanez sucks in left: there are really only two paths to go on from there.
a) they’re just trying to assuage people and don’t really think that
b) they think that but don’t do anything about it
Either of which is a compelling direction to follow… but it’s not. It’s “they know he stinks, of course they do, why would you think they don’t, move on.”
Which is not an adequate response.
Hoser – I didn’t feel you were being snarky at all. I think I spend so much time here deferring to people who know more than I do about math and science (not to mention baseball) that I get over-excited about subjects I have studied more extensively – like word choice.
Thinking back to last year’s explanation for not calling up Jones, the team (McLaren?) was saying he didn’t want to take Vidro’s bat out of the lineup…that such a move makes the team more right-handed.
Vidro then went on a luck-driven “tear” and confirmed the non-move.
My guess is that even though there’s a left-handed replacement for Vidro’s spot in the lineup with a better OPS in Jeremy Reed, and Ibanez’ defense still stinks…this same thought has become so firmly lodged in Mac’s thick skull that he won’t budge on Vidro. Pelekoudas is going to have to DFA him to get Vidro out of the lineup.
It’s one thing when the season doesn’t quite pan out, and it’s quite another when adding insult to injury by moves like continuing to run Ibanez out to left field. Given the other defensive options, defending this move is simply not feasible.
I would like to know what their peers (other teams) are thinking in terms of Ibanez. Do they see Mclaren the same as us and think “what on earth are you doing, old man?”
My take is that there’s some Vidro-love involved, but the bigger reason Raul is still in LF is that he’s hitting, relatively speaking. One of the great baseball gems of wisdom is that it takes time to adjust to the DH and there are lots of guys whose hitting suffers. Since we need him to hit, I think they think, and he hasn’t lost a game for us in LF but has won them with his bat, he’s not a problem.
I would have liked to have seen a Wlad-Ichiro!-Reed outfield with Raul at DH and Vidro somewhere in the general vicinity of Mauritius. The moment Reed was called up, Wlad was pretty much stuck on the bench (yes, he wasn’t hitting, but he, not Vidro, will still be in the majors when the Mariners next make the playoffs–let him take his licks). With Wlad down and Clement up, the M’s have only Bloomquist as an alleged replacement outfielder, and he won’t be made a late-inning defensive replacement because he’s the only pinch runner on the bench (and the M’s have three guys who need pinch runners).