Raul Ibanez's Cold Streak: Been There, Done That

by David S. Cohen on Sep 2, 2009 12:27 PM EDT

Earlier this season, we were asking ourselves whether Raul Ibanez could keep up his torrid start to the season. He made Ruben Amaro look like a genius, as he was performing at an MVP-caliber level. Yet, close analysis of Ibanez's long and streaky career showed that he had excelled like that before. In fact, he has had several streaks during his career when he's looked like Albert Pujols.

So now, people are naturally wondering the same thing about Ibanez's cold streak. Is this the sign that the 37-year-old right fielder has grown too old? Is he still injured? Has he just lost it?

I vote none of the above. Rather, this is just another one of Ibanez's cold streaks. Just like the hot streaks I detailed in the two above-linked posts, Ibanez's career has seen a fair share of cold streaks, streaks much worse than his current situation.

Ibanez's current cold streak can be traced back to a home game against the Cubs on July 21. Since then (and including that game), Ibanez has played in 36 games. Over that stretch of baseball, he has a horrible .194/.293/.318 triple slash line. His OPS is .610, and he has hit only 2 home runs and 11 RBIs.

But we've seen this before from Ibanez in his career. In the 36 games ending July 28, 2007, while Ibanez was playing for the Mariners, he hit .178/.228/.296 for a .524 OPS. And yet, by the end of that year, he was on fire once again -- hitting .366/.432/.655 for a 1.087 OPS with 11 home runs and 30 RBI -- for the 36 games ending September 9.

He did this in Kansas City as well. For the 36 games ending May 15, 2002, Ibanez was atrocious -- .193/.224/.330 for a .554 OPS. He hit 1 home run and had only 14 RBI. This cold streak was sandwiched by two of Ibanez's hottest streaks in his career, which I discussed earlier this year -- his 36 games ending August 11, 2001 (.358/.475/.663 for a 1.138 OPS) and his 36 games ending July 19, 2002 (.364/.422/.803(!!) for a 1.225 OPS).

In fact, the worst 36-game streak of Ibanez's career came at the end of the 2000 season into the start of the 2001 season. In only 50 at-bats, he put up a .200/.226/.220 line for a .446 OPS. Despite that cold streak, he produced later in 2001 and 2002.

Barring a trade or some other unforeseen circumstance, Raul Ibanez is going to be a Phillie for the next two years and a month. As fans, we have to get used to the fact that he is an incredibly streaky player. Right now, he's in one of his typical cold streaks. History shows he'll snap out of it. Let's just hope that happens before October.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’m sure he’ll be fine.

It is pretty funny though that Ibanez is, in many ways, an exact replica of Pat Burrell.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 12:44 PM EDT reply actions

With more hits and fewer walks, but they are really similar. And Ibanez is streakier than Burrell (and that’s not really bad thing necessarily).

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Sep 2, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

it's bad

when he’s in one of the funks.

by Bilzo on Sep 2, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Of course it is, but when he’s hot, he can carry a team (like he did in April/May).

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Sep 2, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions

and more expensive (and older?)

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Sep 2, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

…and left-handed.

That being said, Burrell hasn’t exactly lit up his new digs this year: .239/.337/.400. That includes a 29.1% K rate (his highest since 2001), and a paltry .161 ISO (his lowest ever), and adds up to a whopping 91 OPS+.

So Ruben wasn’t necessarily the genius he looked like in May for signing Ibanez… but it’s quite possible that he’s been vindicated for his view that Burrell’s “old guy skillset” meant he was on a steeper decline than his age indicated.

by PhillyFriar on Sep 2, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Hey Friar, I’m glad you’re here. I was wondering: After the season, would you trade Ibanez to the Giants for a package centered around that 3B prospect whose name escapes me? Would the Giants? Seems to me that a match could be made there.

Which reminds me: maybe Ibanez’s slump will make it less of a PR-disaster to trade him. (It will also lower his trade value, of course.)

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Conor Gillaspie?

I loved Gillaspie coming into the year, but there were concerns over his power even then, and a .094 ISO in the Cal League does little to assuage those fears. He’s probably a borderline B- prospect (under John Sickels’ grading system), and I’m not even positive he’ll stick at 3B. That being said, he’d immediately become the best 3B in our system, but barring a breakout at Double-A next year, his ETA is probably September 2011 or Openingn Day 2012 at this point.

The problem with trading Ibanez — as far as potential returns go — is that there will be a limited market for him. The Giants are a potential suitor, but they’re not handing over any of Posey/Bumgarner/Villalona, so you’d have to take second tier prospects to get that deal done.

Incidentally, I do think it’s a worthwhile endeavor to see what Ibanez might be worth over the winter — I’m just skeptical that the return will be anything that would spur Amaro to deal him.

by PhillyFriar on Sep 2, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, that’s the guy. And now I see he only has 3 HR this year. Hmm.

I hear what you’re saying about the return on a potential trade. My point of view is that with Taylor pretty much ready for the bigs, somebody’s going to have to be traded. Getting a smaller return for Ibanez, I think, will be a worthwhile price to pay for the benefit of not having to lose Werth, Vic, or Taylor.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Interestingly, Ibanez hasn’t cost that much more than Burrell so far. Ibanez had a $2 million signing bonus and has a $6.5 million salary this year. Burrell had no signing bonus and has a $7 million salary this year with Tampa. Obviously we’re on the hook for a lot more in the future with Ibanez than Tampa is with Burrell, but then, who knows what the future holds. (Trade Raul!)

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

The Shadow knows

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Sep 2, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

the problem is

that nobody is going to take that contract off your hands so he IS GOING TO cost you more. Even if he rebounds, you’re not going to get first half Raul for a whole year.

by Bilzo on Sep 2, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

There are very many not good GMs in MLB i think saying ‘nobody’ is going to take him off your hands is a stretch – i mean Minaya still working – he loves old guys who have performed in the past.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Sep 2, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Man, I would feel downright guilty about sending Raul into that disaster-area of an organization.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Not me – the mets suffering is of their own doing – this recent front office mess demonstrates an organization (to me) in disarray from top to bottom starting with an idiotic ownership that doesn’t know how to run a baseball team – the fact that they’re a heated rival makes it that much sweeter if you can get one over on them (besides, teams were getting thigns over on wade for years – payback is fun)

The continued mishaps of the mets (and knicks) is just joyous for me

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Sep 2, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

I dont want to put words in someone else’s mouth, but I think he meant for Raul’s sake. Haha, I agree with you that the Mets did it to themselves, but it would be a little hard on the conscience to put Raul through the mess.

by Whack8888 on Sep 2, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah, I don’t get that emotionally attached to players and I realize that for the ‘misery’ of playing in new citi field (if traded) he’d still get that 22 million

I wouldn’t feel bad about it at all – players (like it or not) are commodities and the goal of a team is to win – if trading a commodity increases your chances of winning (depending on return, the Mets really have very little left in their system to offer for Ibanez anyway) then you trade said commodity.

Emotions, loyalty, that kept Allen Iverson on the sixers way too long, it kept Billy King employed way too long, it kept bobby Clarke employed way too long…

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Sep 2, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Thats true, the team has to do what is best for the team. Plus, Ibanez could have taken a little less money and gotten a no trade clause if he really felt that strongly about not wanting to go to some other team.

by Whack8888 on Sep 2, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That’s simply not accurate. Ibanez is owed $22 million over the next two years. That is not an untradeable contract. It isn’t even in the same vicinity as an untradeable contract. The only question is whether we’ll be willing to trade him in exchange for a relatively smaller return. I think we should be.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

let's be serious...

When everybody in this board is saying “trade Ibañez” there’s a reason for it.
None of us think he is worth the money he is going to earn. That’s not saying he’s a bad player, or that he’s a bad guy…just that he’s going to be overpaid, and we all expect he will be overpaid by A LOT in the next couple years, and his contract is only one year old.

If all of us think it’s a bad contract…..do you seriously think there’s some GM out there who doesn’t? I’m not saying he’s untradeable, but what will have to be weighed is how much of his contract are we going to have to eat if we do try and trade him?

I agree that we’d be willing to “trade him in exchange for a relatively smaller return”
but the not so nice term for that is “salary dump”. (reference Bobby Abreu).

I like that since Ed Wade was replaced, the Phils have shown no qualms about dumping players who are contributing negatively despite being paid large sums of money (David Bell, Adam Eaton), so I trust that Amaro will do the best that he can with this contract. I am not suggesting Ibanez is remotely near being somebody to dump, so please don’t make that connection. There’s a difference between hurting your team and not earning your paycheck. Ibanez could still turn it around again, but I think it’s on the “eating rainbow stew” level to think that as an outfielder nears 40, that he’s going to be able to improve his performance.

What scares me is that he can’t catch up to a fastball at all.

by Bilzo on Sep 2, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

1. “Everybody on this board” is not saying “Trade Ibanez.” I’ve been trying to get people on board with the idea for weeks now, and hardly anyone ever agrees with me.

2. He isn’t all that overpaid and his contract isn’t that bad. $11 million/year is not that expensive by MLB FA standards, not even in this economy. Hardly any of us were shocked by the size of his contract per se when he signed it. We were upset because we felt there were better options under the circumstances. But he is still a productive player and I don’t know where you get the idea that other teams would run away from him like he was some sort of albatross.

3. Call it a salary dump if you want to, but if you don’t trade Ibanez, then you’re going to have to trade somebody else. Explain to me exactly how that would be a better option for the team.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m suggesting that you don’t trade Ibanez, I’m saying it’s going to be ridiculously hard to do. If you trade him, and have to send half his salary with him, then you’re really getting rid of him, and eating half his salary. The question then becomes “Is raul worth 50% of face value?” because if he is, you’re breaking even by keeping him if you’re going to have to pay that money anyway to get rid of him.

by Bilzo on Sep 2, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Eat half his salary? Are you nuts? That might be an accurate description of our situation if Ibanez either had become a bad player or was signed to an exorbitant long-term contract. But neither of those things is, in fact, the case.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, even if your factual premise were correct (which it isn’t), you would still be wrong. That is, even if Raul was worth only 50% of face value in a vacuum, it would still be worth it for us to trade him because we’re probably going to have four outfielders next year.

Seriously, do you really think Ibanez would only command a $5.5 million salary per year if he were going back on the FA market after this year? That’s simply absurd, even at age 37. He is, at most, only slightly overpaid, and he only has two years left on his deal.

by taco pal on Sep 2, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I dunno, was Burrell THAT streaky? I have posted here before that in a 3 year stretch, he had a monthly OPS below .800 like just twice.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Sep 2, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions

that could also just mean his streaks don’t last as long. Three week tears followed by three week slumps, correlating to games at Shea stadium, or course.

by Bilzo on Sep 2, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions