Game 23, White Sox at Mariners

DMZ · April 26, 2006 at 6:53 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

LHP Buehlre v LHP Washburn. 7:05 FSN.

Bloomquist plays center in the non-platoon platoon… and bats SECOND. It’s that situational hitting he brings to the team.

Other lineup news: Johjima moves ahead of Beltre in the batting order to sixth.

Probably going to be a small game thread, what with the server switch and so many people still pointing in the wrong direction, getting errors and whatnot.


145 Responses to “Game 23, White Sox at Mariners”

  1. bpdawg24 on April 26th, 2006 9:06 pm

    YESSIRRRR. No Eddie tonight, in my coffee, no Eddie tonight in my tea!

  2. Rain Delay on April 26th, 2006 9:09 pm

    94- Then I shouldn’t tell you about the Pitching and Hitter Day to Day database over at Baseball Musings. lol

  3. Rick L on April 26th, 2006 9:10 pm

    If they get two runners on base, does that make JJ eligible for a save?

  4. bpdawg24 on April 26th, 2006 9:11 pm

    103. No, can’t work your way into a save.

    How about some strikes, JJ?

  5. DCFan at GW on April 26th, 2006 9:12 pm

    Why didn’t we leave Soriano in?

  6. Rick L on April 26th, 2006 9:13 pm

    Nice DP. Nice play by both YuBet and Lopez.

  7. carcinogen on April 26th, 2006 9:14 pm

    NIIIIICE. Me likey splitter.

  8. Jay R. on April 26th, 2006 9:14 pm

    DP! Well executed.

  9. Rick L on April 26th, 2006 9:14 pm

    That’s the JJ I remember

  10. LB on April 26th, 2006 9:15 pm

    Why didn’t we leave Soriano in?

    When he reaches arbitration, the team wants his number of saves to be as low as possible.

  11. Rick L on April 26th, 2006 9:15 pm

    Or it was, the JJ I remember for a while.

  12. DCFan at GW on April 26th, 2006 9:16 pm

    110 – and the number of L’s as high as possible… that way they won’t have the money and the arbitor must take it into account

  13. John in L.A. on April 26th, 2006 9:18 pm

    Andren – yes, 740 on DirecTV.

    88 – Reed, as disappointing as he may have been, has STILL hit better than Willie. And that’s at about the bottom of Reed’s ability. His worst is pretty much better than Willie.

    Not against lefties, but he’s only had 7 at bats against them this year… and why would you want to handicap a promising young player to upgrade to mediocore?

  14. JoeM on April 26th, 2006 9:19 pm

    Career: .269/.338/.703 and .230 w/RISP
    2006: .207/.273/.583 and .000 w/RISP
    Career: .261/.308/.649 and .260 w/RISP
    2006: .294/.350/.630 and .500 w/RISP

    Reed FP .989 at CF
    Bloomquist FP .971 at CF (1 error in 15 games)

    So…by the numbers why NOT platoon Reed/Bloomquist?

  15. bpdawg24 on April 26th, 2006 9:19 pm

    nerrrrrrvous moments

  16. DCFan at GW on April 26th, 2006 9:19 pm

    A WIN!

  17. carcinogen on April 26th, 2006 9:20 pm

    I’m certainly happy with this…obviously. This was a solid response to the thumping they took yesterday.

  18. LB on April 26th, 2006 9:20 pm

    And Valle begins the tongue bath for Willie. Sigh.

  19. Rain Delay on April 26th, 2006 9:21 pm

    Nice win.

    With that shot of all of them shaking hands and what not, is it me or does Hassey needs to stay away from the catering table? lol

  20. dan on April 26th, 2006 9:21 pm

    #114 because reed might actually be a good player given enough playing time, and using bloomquist as a cf means you lose the team’s best close-and-late pinch runner.

  21. John in L.A. on April 26th, 2006 9:21 pm

    114 – because Reed is a promising young talent you want to give every cahnce to develop and Bloomquist is a replacement level player you gain almost nothing by giving more playing time? In fact, you hurt yourself by taking your only reserve infielder off the bench.

    And because, as I said, Reed’s floor is about level with Bloomquist’s ceiling.

  22. bpdawg24 on April 26th, 2006 9:22 pm

    Very nice W and series win over arguably the hottest team in the land.

  23. Rick L on April 26th, 2006 9:23 pm

    It would be nice to have another reserve infielder so Reed could substitute for WFB in situations like the 9th. Even though Willie has a decent fielding percentage in CF, it is a lot different to play the outfield than the infield.

  24. John in L.A. on April 26th, 2006 9:23 pm

    122 – indeed.

  25. LB on April 26th, 2006 9:24 pm

    So, if you beat the World Champs 2 out of 3, that make you the World Champs. Right? That’s what I’m getting from the FSNW guys, anyway.

  26. mfaninpa on April 26th, 2006 9:25 pm

    82 – LOB% AL league average is 70%
    NL league average is 71%

  27. JoeM on April 26th, 2006 9:32 pm

    121, granted Reed should have more upside in the long run and should be the regular CF. He also should have been on the bench if WFB hits .500 against their starter and Reed hits .200 against lefties. Now if the next lefty owns bloomquist and reed equally (or even by .100 points) then fine give Reed a chance to hit. But if WFB continues to steal bases, hit with runners in scoring position and Reed doesn’t, it makes it hard to convince Hargove (moron that he is) to keep sending Reed up there.

    That being said, all the M’s suckfest hitters are looking better the last 6-9 games despite the record of the team. Reed might be next to catch fire.

  28. Rain Delay on April 26th, 2006 9:33 pm

    82 – LOB% AL league average is 70%
    NL league average is 71%

    Thanks, I totally missed that…

  29. Rain Delay on April 26th, 2006 9:33 pm

    So with that said, Washburn is right around the AL average..

  30. dan on April 26th, 2006 9:46 pm

    #127 i had that mindset last year. it’s a bit harder this year when there are enough guys hitting well in the lineup that we shouldn’t be sacraficing playing time for players (reed) just to give a bench guy who is doing well more playing time.

    but that’s just me.

  31. msb on April 26th, 2006 9:57 pm

    so, off to Baltimore & the Twins, right?

    I’m off to bed with my friend Mr Vicodin. Good luck with your pal, John.

  32. JoeM on April 26th, 2006 10:01 pm

    See last year I would have kept willie benched except late in games. I would have guessed Reed would have a huge year then this year he’d sophmore slump as there was more footage of him.

  33. BelaXadux on April 26th, 2006 10:11 pm

    Wudjabuhleeevit?? Just when Ye Old Home Nine look as though they’re about to sink away in an unlovely dissolve like a third-grade wedding cake in a hot station wagon, they put on a professional performance for a full nine innings to get a W?? Well, wunderbar! (Only one to a customer, though.)

    Lopez is a difference-maker on this roster, fersure, fersure. If J-Rod keeps throwing games like that, he’ll be someone he hasn’t been before: consistent. He’s had stretches of effectivness in his career—and wipe-out bad years, too. I’m waiting until June before I commit to a position on the man, but I’m almost willing to go to the park to watch him pitch, now.

  34. JI on April 26th, 2006 10:14 pm

    M’s win (Buerhle no less), Hendu is nowhere to be found- I must be dreaming.

    So at what point does Boom-Boom give Beltre a night off?

  35. BelaXadux on April 26th, 2006 10:23 pm

    Re: Reed or Willie out there in CF, this is the third time this year Willie has dived for a line shot; the first two he flat missed for XB RBI hits. There’s a good chance that Reed, with good jumps and good routes, doesn’t even leave his feet to make this catch. That’s the difference.

    Putting Willie in the lineup tonight to get the match-up is exactly what a manager is supposed to do. I don’t care for Bloomers either, but it’s simple spite to fault Grover for playing a guy with better stats when his team needs a win. One can fault him easily, however, for not making the defensive substitution in the 8th. Decent managers spot a match-up and use it; good managers spot _every_ match-up and make the optimal change, inning by inning.

  36. Goose on April 26th, 2006 10:24 pm


    To be the man, WOOOOOO, you got to beat the man!

  37. Bruce on April 26th, 2006 10:46 pm

    “Spite” isn’t why I’d fault Grover for playing WFB over Reed. Instead, it’s because I believe that:

    WFB’s advantage against Buehrle is ephemeral.

    WFB is a clear defensive downgrade in CF compared to Reed. (To your examples of missed dives, I’d add the double that he turned into a triple this week by misplaying the bounce off the wall.)

    Grover’s pattern of sitting Reed against lefties is preventing his development against same.

  38. G-Man on April 26th, 2006 11:27 pm

    I’d say use the excuse of Willie’s previous success against Buehle to play him in place of Beltre or Sexson tonight.

    I agree that the fawning over Willie is overdone, but there is sure a lot of other undeserved platitudes said about other players, too.

  39. Harold on April 26th, 2006 11:46 pm

    Well as long as the M’s are 3.5 games out of the AL West (or is it waste?) lead then were likely to see the duties in CF split between The Ignitor and Reed. Just don’t call it Platooning. It’s “Sharing”.

  40. John in L.A. on April 27th, 2006 12:13 am

    138 – Who?

    Assuming we are talking about mariners, which is all I really care about, I can’t think of anyone who comes close to the level of undeserved fawning of Bloomquist. I’d say that a distant second is Guardado, but even he gets called out once in a while. They’ve never really over-fawned, on Betancourt or Lopez. They’ve been pretty hard on Lopez, actually. They’ve never fallen over themselves praising Reed. All of those young guys they talk a lot about what they need to learn, even when they are outperforming everyone else.

    Betancourt gets a lot of glove praise, but that’s hardly undeserved.

    2003-2004 Bret Boone, maybe gets about halfway to Willie on the undeserved platitudes scale – and at least in his case at one point he had been worthy of the fawning.

    Two days ago Betancourt has a real big moment in a young guy’s career – he drove in a run in the bottom of the ninth to win the game… and all anyone wanted to talk about was how awesome Willie Bloomquist was to steal that base.

    137 – my sentiments exactly.

    Mariners management has really backed themselves into a corner with Willie. For years they’ve oversold him… and now they have to justify finding playing time for him to appease the masses.

    And at this point it is irrelevant how good a utility guy he is, because the Mariners largely refuse to use him as such.

  41. msb on April 27th, 2006 11:51 am

    just curious, how has M’s management ‘oversold’ Bloomquist?

  42. Steve T on April 27th, 2006 1:20 pm

    Bret Boone in 2003 was a legitimate MVP candidate, and in 2004 was still one of the best players on the Mariners. Willie has never been within a country mile of either of those conditions.

  43. eponymous coward on April 27th, 2006 2:38 pm

    in 2004 was still one of the best players on the Mariners.


    Bret Boone, 2004: .251/.317/.423

    TEAM stats for 2004 Mariners: .270 BA (6th), .331 OBP (10th), .399 SLG (14th)

    His defense was nothing to write home about in 2004, either. In 2004, Bret Boone was just bad, as opposed to 2005 being truly awful.

  44. John in L.A. on April 27th, 2006 2:57 pm

    Steve T – Ooops. I meant 2004-2005, sorry.

    msb – announcers/press/interviews… they sold the local scrappy guy angle hard and it worked too well, fans like him way out of proportion to his value.

  45. msb on April 27th, 2006 5:14 pm

    not management then, but the local media (who just love that he is a very honest interview, and more esp. a very easy story for them) and the hired broadcasters (who prob. fall into the exact same catagory) …. I sure couldn’t recall anyone on the management side making a point of talking him up as the 2nd baseman of the future (they have always gone out and gotten someone else to play his positions) or as anyone other than a local guy they like….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.