Gillick Chimes In
The Phillies and first-year GM Ruben Amaro Jr raised eyebrows this offseason when they quickly signed Raul Ibanez to a 3-yr/$31.5 mil contract. Many analysts, myself included, jumped all over the move, questioning Ibanez’s performance and productivity in relation to the terms of the deal while simultaneously comparing the former Mariner to Phillies stalwart Pat Burrell. One critique of the signing that initially took a backseat to the performance comparison involves the surplus of similar players on the market. With at least six corner outfielders eligible for free agency, especially in this economy, Ibanez could have been had for a much lower salary.
According to former Phillies GM Pat Gillick, this might not be true. While hanging around Clearwater, the Phillies home for Spring Training, Gillick remarked that the Cubs had a strong interest in Ibanez and were pushing pretty hard. Lou Piniella and Ibanez shared a solid relationship dating back to Sweet Lou’s managerial tenure in Seattle and was extremely high on the left-handed left-fielder.
The Cubs desired a left-handed outfielder and apparently Ibanez topped their list. If this is true, then the Phillies acted similarly to the Braves with Derek Lowe. Frank Wren and Co. jumped on Lowe, perhaps even paying him a bit more, when they heard the Phillies were seriously considering moving Brett Myers to free up some payroll space. It would also mean that, if the Phillies were also sold on Ibanez as the best choice, the rationale behind the years/dollars is not as transparent as before. Don’t get me wrong, I still consider it a very poor deal due to his age, fielding, and potentially declining offense, but it now makes more sense why they signed him so early in the offseason: they felt he was the guy and learned of a serious competitor. In my eyes they are wrong, but at least their reasoning is a bit more known despite being overly incorrect.
Gillick also touched on the Pat Burrell situation, implying that the Phillies had plenty of interest in his return, but debates raged over specific contractual terms. The actual average annual value was not the problem, but rather the years. Given that the Phillies have stated they offered Burrell a 2-yr/$22 mil deal, I’m guessing Burrell wanted 3-yr/$33 mil. Halfway through the season that may actually have been realistic as an extension, but given all of the factors mentioned at the top of this post, it simply wasn’t going to happen in the free agent market.
The big issue arose when the Phillies signed Ibanez to the above-market contract and then witnessed the market collapse to the point that Burrell could only coax the Rays for 2-yr/$16 mil. He is more productive than Raul, and younger, and signed for half the total dollars. The problem here isn’t necessarily that the Phillies hopped on a player very early in an odd market, but that they felt Ibanez was such a superior option than everyone else. Had they practiced some due diligence, they not only could have brought back the more productive player, but they could have done so at a vastly discounted price.
Print This Post
Wait… so the fact the Cubs were also willing to pay an absurd amount somehow justifies giving Ibanez that terrible contract…?
Nice try, Mr. Gillick…
No, but at least their thinking is less transparent. If Ibanez had no other team courting him as heavily as the Phillies were, then to sign him that quickly, for that length, and that salary, is borderline inexcusable. However, if they felt heavy competition, then at least their line of reasoning is existant, despite being incorrect.
I still don’t understand why you wouldn’t pay Burrell 33M when you’re willing to pay Ibanez 30.5M. There’s still no excuse for this deal.
On another note, this makes me wonder if the Cubs would’ve pursued Bradley had Ibanez “fell” to them. This offseason could’ve been quite different.
No, they wouldn’t have pursued Bradley. From what I’ve read it seems that Bradley was their second resort. Maybe Amaro didn’t want the entire team to return in tact, and so Burrell became the odd man out. Or maybe he really thinks Ibanez is a better defender than his putrid marks suggest. Either way, he’s not a good fit at that price. No way he is worth as much money as Dunn, more than Burrell, and 2 x Abreu. But understanding that they felt heavy competition at least makes their line of reasoning for signing him quickly less transparent. It doesn’t excuse anything though.
Okay this instant anaylis deserves a bit of HI rating itself. So everyone believes they were able to see that an industry that has profitted billion and billions of dollars over the last four years would suddenly play the “Recession” card (even though they have yet to even participate in “this economy”) and contracts would be deflated dramitically?
Don’t kid yourselves, smarter people who make more money than any of us mis-read this market as recently as December when Boras decided that Veritek would be have his picking from any team for any amount of money and receive a signing bonus of 7 virgins.
there is no amount of due-dilligence, preperation and savvy could of shown anyone the dramatic effects this market has had on contracts. None. And anyone that believes so is sorely mistaken. Or should quit their job and, with their economic vision, start day trading.
Contracts have corrected themselves, but no way anyone could of predicted it woudl have been so sudden and so accute.
Tony, if I, in “my mother’s basement,” saw that with 6-9 corner outfielders with comparable skills were going to hit the market, thereby decreasing their values due to a surplus, I fully expect GMs and front office personnel to grasp that as well. It has more to do with the number of players that play the position than the actual economy.
The deal was bad even if the economy had been good. The necessary “due diligence” had nothing to do with the recession or its effect on salaries. Though the glut of outfielders (and its expected effect on salaries) was a known factor, the real issue is entirely about Raul’s fielding (in)ability, age, and expected performance over the life of the contract vs those characteristics of the other options. The predictions involved have nothing to do with seeing the economic meltdown coming. You’re trying to argue against something that wasn’t said.
Seems to me that there is something said aobu the market here:
“The big issue arose when the Phillies signed Ibanez to the above-market contract and then witnessed the market collapse to the point that Burrell could only coax the Rays for 2-yr/$16 mil.”
I suppose that the Phils could of over paid based on the fact that there were alot of corner outfielder on the market. But that’s all relative. If the Phillies only believed that there were two corner outfielders worth thier while having than their supply of available OF’ers is significantly smaller than what is claimed in the article. Eric draws the line for acceptiable corner outfields at 6-9. Maybe the Phillies drew that line at 2 or 3? They might be wrong for that, but to say they were wrong and mis-assessed the depth of the market isn’t fair.
And the other thing is that a large supply doesn’t automatically gaurantee a lower price. There is a Hummer dealership next to my apartment that has a ton of Hummer’s on the lot. And there is a Mazda dealership down the road that has smaller inventory. There’s less demand and more supply of the Hummer’s but they still charge alot more for their product than the Mazda dealership. There are alot of contributing factors that account for this that go way beyond the supply and demand model.
But with so many fairly similar outfielders on the market, why overpay for Ibanez just because another team is bidding up the price? Walk away and look at Dunn, Bradley, Abreu, etc. If Amaro wouldn’t have been so quick to jump, a month or so later it would have been obvious what this year’s market was really like, and then he could have gotten another player worth as much or more than Ibanez at a lower price.
Exactly my point. I’m in no way justifying their thinking but rather pointing out that they acted the way they did because of this reason. Had they waited even just a little then they could have seen Ibanez’ price fall and/or brought in a better player for less money.
Eric, playing devil’s advocate, couldn’t one argue that team context and chemistry play a factor here? The Phils have some extra “$ value” to burn. For instance, Fangraphs’ 2008 advanced team stats have the Phils valued at$71.8 in Pitching Dollars and $135.5 in Batting Dollars = $207.3, while USAToday has the Phils’ actual 2008 team salary as $98.27, a positive difference of $109.03. Given the structure of the 2009 team, might it be reasonable to expect that the Phils can produce around $200 in value next year, even if their payroll is at around $135? So, as far as context, the Phils had the ability to overpay for some intangibles, namely consistency and chemistry. Also, looking at the roster, the Phils are locked into most of their best players for similar rates over the next three years. While I can see the argument that Burrell, Dunn, Bradley and even Abreu are “better” players from a WAR standpoint, isn’t it reasonable to suggest that the Phillies had some money to burn to acquire the player (Ibanez) that they wanted, who had the skills (consistency/chemistry) that they sought to maintain/increase? Plus, acknowledging Gillick’s comments, it seems likely that Burrell and Abreu had worn out their welcome in their stints as Phils and were not likely to come back. And, while Bradley may have been a consideration, he has caused his own problems on other teams in the past. As for Dunn, an argument can certainly be made that the Phils were not interested in adding his sheer number of strikeouts to their lineup. Instead, with Ibanez, the Phils now have their lineup largely set for the next three years and are coming off a WS Championship. I can live with that. Also, as an aside, I threw Fangraphs advanced total dollar values (pitching & batting) for all teams in 2008 into a simple spreadsheet and found it totaled $4696.20, while USAToday’s actual 2008 salaries for all teams equaled $2686.43, a $2 billion difference. Thoughts?
Teams that overpay for intangibles generally don’t end up being good teams.
That is an interesting comment. IMO the teams that usually play up character guys are “on the cheap” while the Yankees / Red Sox types place a greater emphasis on skill over character. It will be interesting to see how Ibanez will work out.
Upon reviewing some of the comments, I see that the term, “consistency,” was not specific enough. Let’s change the term “consistency” into the phrase “consistent contact.” To paraphrase Wily Canate, in some ways, Ibanez brings better balance to the Phils’ lineup as he has a lower K% and higher BABIP than Burrell. Of course, Ibanez is LH, but that was discussed in earlier Ibanez blog posts this winter. Plus, I envision Werth stepping into the Burrell/RHB role. The main point is team context. In the NL, the Phils, with Ibanez, are still in a good position to make the playoffs next year and potentially go to another WS. The Phils chose consistent contact and chemistry with Ibanez. Given the value derived from the rest of their roster, they can probably afford to make that choice without major negative repercussions.
ibanez
babip
2004 – .331
2005 – .307
2006 – .310
2007 – .321
20o8 – .325
K%
2004 – 15%
2005 – 16.1%
2006 – 18.4%
2007 – 16.9%
2008 – 17.3%
burrell
babip
2004 – .310
2005 – .341
2006 – .298
2007 – .283
20o8 – .275
K%
2004 – 29%
2005 – 28.5%
2006 – 28.4%
2007 – 25.4%
2008 – 25.4%
Theoretically, Ibanez’s skill set would probably be more prone to “inconsistency” precisely BECAUSE his value is more dependent upon BABIP than a TTO hitter like Burrell’s is, but unless you can demonstrate why consistent performance is more valuable than inconsistent performance that yields the same results, this is an exercise in the opposite of non-futility.
And if you don’t want to take it from me, here’s what Tom Tango has to say on the matter:
“There’s no way you can figure out the “consistency” of a player. A player’s true talent level changes slightly day-to-day, year-to-year … The PERFORMANCE of the player is subject to much randomness. You just can’t figure out the consistency of a player’s true talent level from the performance of that player.”
Not to belabor the point on BABIP, but, perhaps, I should quote Derek Carty from HardballTimes in his discussion at Razzball.com:
“BABIP: . . . Most pitchers regress toward the league average BABIP of around .300 or .305 . . . . Very few pitchers can repeatedly do better or worse than this, so we say that pitchers have very little control over BABIP. Batters, on the other hand, can have a substantial amount of control over BABIP. Ichiro, for example, has a .356 career BABIP. Hitters do not regress toward league average, rather, they each regress toward their own, unique number.”
Basically, as discussed in my post above, Ibanez consistently makes better contact than Burrell. I cited Ibanez’s consistently lower K% rate annually and his consistently higher BABIP rate annually. Ibanez puts the ball in play, and these balls in play tend to fall for more hits, more often, than Burrell. So, while we can agree on your excerpt from Tom Tango on consistency, I don’t think it necessarily applies to my point above. Namely, that Ibanez can reasonably be argued to bring better balance to the Phils’ lineup from the standpoint of having more consistent contact year in and year out.
Unless you can tell me why this so-called balance is preferable to/more valuable than imbalance that produces the same results, this discussion serves no purpose to anyone (and yet I persist…). I’m not saying it is and I’m not saying it isn’t, but I’ve seen you offer nothing in the way of evidence or even the rationale for this belief. I could very well be wrong but you’ve given me nothing to go on. You’ve made two rebuttals without actually saying anything.
If I’m 3 WAR one year, 1 the next, and 5 the next and you’re 3 WAR each year, what difference does it make? A tiny fraction of a “playoff share”, but in which direction?
If my monthly breakdown is +1.0, +0.5, -1, +2, -1.5 and +2 and you’re 0.5 every month, what impact does it have? If you can prove to me that one is more desirable than the other from the standpoint of winning ballgames, I’ll back off. I suppose there’s some value in not frustrating fans and management to no end with your streaky production, but I’ll reiterate that for whatever reason(s), Ibáñez’s performance the last two seasons was as streaky as almost anyone’s.
Another thing, where did this notion that Ibáñez is so much more consistent than Burrell come from in the first place? Ibáñez’s Batting Wins per 650 plate appearances the last four years are 1.3, 2.0, 1.6 and 1.9. Burrell’s are 2.3, 1.9, 2.5 and 2.0. Sure looks every bit as consistent as Ibáñez to me.
Don’t waste your time MAS. Whatever stat you provide won’t be valid enough. Let’s watch Raul this year and regroup on the Sunday when the regular season ends….
I’m not sure that there is a valid enough stat to prove what he’s trying to prove. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, just that there is a considerable burden of proof on him. He first has to prove that Ibáñez’s daily or yearly performance can be reasonably expected to be more consistent than Burrell’s and then that Ibáñez’s superior consistency has a significant impact on winning ballgames, his teammates’ performance, gameday revenue or anything else I may be overlooking—a daunting task to be sure.
He’s yet to address why Ibáñez’s contact rate and BABIP make for better balance/consistency and why this balance/consistency makes for a more valuable ballplayer. If he can demonstrate one and then the other beyond a somewhat reasonable doubt using numbers and not anecdotal evidence, only then might I be swayed. This isn’t about me having unreasonable standards, this is about the standard of proof being so high.
“Ibáñez puts the ball in play, and these balls in play tend to fall for more hits, more often, than Burrell.”
I can’t deny that, but what of Burrell’s walk rate? He walks nearly twice as much as Ibáñez which decreases his reliance on the chaotic nature of BABIP. He need not worry about hitting into bad luck when he’s jogging to first base every six times to the plate.
The problem I see is the compartmentalization of stats, focusing on one or two numbers at the expense of the rest. It reminds me of this satirical piece at Baseball Evolution. When you’re overly focused on the details instead of looking at the big picture, it can lead to dangerous conclusions.
It’s an interesting discussion. First, there is no need to “prove” that Ibanez is more consistent than Burrell. It’s not really a worthwhile exercise. Burrell and Ibanez are consistent and inconsistent in different ways. They are what they are. The Phillies chose Ibanez. We’ll see how it works out. What’s more interesting to discuss is whether stats are the only method to build a team. It’s the stats v. scout argument to some degree. Yes, stats are important, but it is reasonable to suggest that intangibles also matter. For instance, anecdotally, Moyer’s mentorship appears to have been helpful for Hamels. W/ Moyer and Hamels, the Phils won a world series and Hamels was WS MVP. Yet, is he a better pitcher than before Moyer? Maybe not. On the other hand, maybe he stayed healthy because of Moyer’s counsel. And, yet, maybe the relationship had very little to do with anything. Perhaps Ruiz’s hitting in the WS was the difference. One of the points is, that, if WAR is the only thing that matters, then why did the Red Sox not win the World Series last year? If WAR always predicts the winner, then why is there ever an upset? Perhaps, the main point is that other factors come into play once a certain level of achievement is reached. Luck. Health. Personal life issues. Ability to play small ball. Ability to hit LHP. Leadership. Chemistry. Character. Diversity. Depth. There is no exact answer on how to build a champion. So the argument as to “why this so-called balance is preferable to/more valuable than imbalance that produces the same results” is that the balance created by adding more diversity in the lineup between strikeout and contact hitters will lend itself to another championship. Of course, there are a host of possible reasons why the Phils signed Ibanez over Burrell that have nothing to do with this idea. Perhaps the Phils didn’t like his attitude, didn’t think he was coachable, or maybe even felt that he didn’t try hard enough after his last contract was signed. And, yes, perhaps the Phils should have waited and signed a younger Burrell for less money and less years. They didn’t though. Given the context of their team, perhaps they signed the hitter that fit their ideals more closely i.e. more contact, less strikeouts, while still producing similar, yet arguably less production from a WAR standpoint. As to “overpaying,” maybe they could afford to overpay. For instance, the Phils, according to WAR value, received $207.3 million in production in 2008, yet only paid $98.27 million in actual salary. So, if it can be assumed that they will get $200 mill production in 2009, then they can afford a $135 mill salary with Ibanez’s salary included. Thus, their “overachieving” players in terms of WAR Value to Actual Salary (i.e. Utley, Victorino, Werth, etc.) allow for some flexibility for them to “overpay” for a player such as Ibanez who brings skills that either do not show up on the stat sheet (leadership, character, chemistry) or are different skills (contact) than they already have (strikeout power hitters) and, thus, enable them to achieve a more balanced and diversified lineup. I’d like to review a study that observed playoff teams in short series as well as world championship teams to see if a diversified team with contact and strikeout hitters had any advantage over a team that only had strikeout hitters. It might not. At the same token, other factors, such as leadership and character, which are not as measurable may have an impact as well. As to this thought, it really goes back to whether or not anyone can exactly explain how to build a champion. Until there is one exact answer based solely on stats, then it is unreasonable to entirely discount other factors outside of the stats realm, such as leadership and character. As a final matter, discussions like this do serve a purpose because they fill the gap in the offseason and may create another theory to prove/disprove. Feel free to work through the playoff diversity theory. For now, pitchers and catchers are reporting and, fortunately, the Phils are defending champions. Regardless of whether or not Ibanez was the right decision, I’m just happy that they can defend their title.
LOL, good stuff.
Eric, I love your blogs and am a lifelong Phillies fan and a Pat Burrell fan (I wore a Man or Machine Shirt opening day last year) but letting him go was a fine move. He’s a terrible situational hitter and far too streaky. You remember after the STL game in June where the offense just died. The Phils are too inconsistent to be a great team.
The Phils only won 92 games last year and there is room for improvement in the regular season. They win 13-6 games but lose 4-3 games. With the best closer performance ever they were only 27-23 in one run games. By way of comparison the Yanks were 27-18 in one run games and the Angels were 31-21.
A little more clutch hitting and thats at least 2 or 3 more wins. An older hitter may also be able to pass some insight to the younger hitters about situational hitting. Who provides veteran insight to the hitters? No one. Milt and Charlie. Ibanez can function like a Moyer to the pitchers.
Replacing Pat is tricky but the alternatives all had gaps:
Dunn – GMs say he doesnt like the game and he is another three outcome player, we have enough of them
Bradley – Come on, injury prone and insane
Manny – He wasn’t an option
Abreu – Good fantasy player but I don’t want him in the clubhouse at any salary
Ibanez – Probably the best situational hitter of the “non-Manny’s” BUT he’s streaky, a minus defensive player and old
To get to the point where the Phils can win 97-102 games they had to let Burrell go. They can not continue to hope for the Mets to choke and clinch in the 162nd or 160th game.
Just my two cents. Keep up the great work….
Exactly what terrible situational hitting of Burrell’s are you referring to? His .866 career OPS with men on base as opposed to .838 with the bases empty? His .848 OPS with the bases loaded? His .856 OPS with runners in scoring position and two outs? .870 in Late & Close situations? .833 in tie games? .871 in one run games? .863 in two run games? .860 in high leverage situations? Is this the terrible situational hitting you’re talking about?
Buttseck, IMO OPS includes walks which is a poor indicator of situational hitting. When you need a clutch RBI and you get a walk and Wes Helms is up next and strikes out thats not a great outcome.
Looking at career stats is not always a good barometer. Better to focus on the last few years. Id argue the last 3.
Also, comparing “Pat with people on base” to “Pat with bases empty” compares “Pat to Pat”. Pat may bear down but just because he does better doesnt make it satisfactory.
I just took one stat below which is 2 outs and RISP.
BTW….I watch 162 Phils games each year so this one really ticks me off. I also would venture that with no one out and a runner on 2nd there is no way Pat moves that runner but thats more subjective.
________________
2 outs RISP for Pat
2008 – .183 (88 plate apperances)
2007 – .255 (73 pa)
2006 – .167 (102 pa)
2 outs RISP for Ibanez
2008 – .324 (81 plate apperances)
2007 – .324 (80 pa)
2006 – .377 (77 pa)
Slice and dice Ibanez vs. Burrell all day and Raul is better in the clutch and a better situational hitter.
Yeah, only you didn’t slice and dice Ibanez vs. Burrell all day. You basically looked at one category using arguably the worst barometer of hitting ability available and concluded that Ibanez was better. That’s actually the complete opposite of slicing and dicing all day.
For future reference, don’t expect to be able to walk into an argument armed with nothing but cherry-picked stats, flawed metrics and small sample sizes and have your “analysis” taken seriously. Also, the “I watch every game” thing carries very little weight around here. Michael Kay and Ken Singleton watch every Yankee game and they think Derek Jeter is the greatest shortstop on earth.
I would love to see over the last 2 to 3 years how Burrell is better in the clutch than Ibanez. Burrell plays in one of the most potent lineups with opportunity galore. Point to his OPS and all his walks….
Prove to me how he wasn’t. I never said Ibanez > Burrell or Burrell > Ibanez. You did. The burden of proof is on you.
You’re using five hundred and one points of data to “prove” a point that can’t possibly be proven with five hundred and one points of data, and that’s assuming you were even using the right five hundred and one points of data (you weren’t) and the right measurement tools (you weren’t).
I feel that Amaro’s preference for Ibanez over Burrell (and the other similar players) is defendable. I also see nothing wrong with paying more for the right player than settling for Plan B simply because he is a better value, particularly when you are trying to win a championship.
I realize these points are often dismissed at this site as they have no statistical justification but here goes. First point is that Ibanez is much better at making contact and maintaining his level play throughout a season than Burrell. Given Howard’s, Utley’s and Werth’s high K% and in season peaks and valleys, Ibanez simply brings better balance to the Phillies’ lineup than a Burrell or a Dunn.
Second, Ibanez’ body type and superior physical conditioning suggest that he will age more gracefully than the alternatives. His game also isn’t as dependent on “old player skills” like Burrell or Dunn. So even if his birth certificate has more years on it, his future performance may have less regression than the alternatives.
And lastly, while UZR considers ballpark factors, I just can’t help but think that Ibanez’ defense will play up in Citizens’ Bank where he will be asked to cover less ground than in Safeco – there are simply fewer spaces outside of his range where balls can be hit. He may not reach average but the impact of his poor range will be less on the game outcome and as a result the win value of his UZR should improve.
Raul Ibanez’s GPA by month:
Mar/Apr 2007 .225
May 2007.277
Jun 2007.290
Jul 2007.178
Aug 2007 .381
Sep/Oct 2007 .333
Mar/Apr 2008 .282
May 2008 .237
Jun 2008 .291
Jul 2008 .313
Aug 2008 .390
Sep/Oct 2008 .213
If you had taken the time to do some research you’d have found that Ibanez was in actuality probably one of the least consistent performers in all of baseball the last two seasons. If you’re having trouble visualizing the magnitude of a .203 point swing in GPA, click my name for a link to Ibanez’s daily wOBA chart.
Every player has peaks and valleys. The random nature of baseball makes it impossible to be any other way. They’re impossible to predict and they generally mean nothing. As we can see with the supposed Mr. Consistency Raul Ibanez, a .360 wOBA is a .360 wOBA. Ibanez’s .356 wOBA in ‘07 and ‘08 was no less valuable than his .359 wOBA in 2006 when his daily performance was decidedly more stable. When it comes down to it, they both contribute equally to the win column.
Ibanez was also a Type A free agent, so the signing was even more expensive than the years/dollars imply, at least when compared to re-signing Burrell or some of the other options. Of course Gillick has a long history of discounting the value of draft picks (and so this signing might be viewed as step towards balancing the karmic scales for the many picks he squandered when he was managing the Mariners).
The 2 year/22M offer was only a rumor. The Phillies never claimed to have proposed it, and Burrell said no such offer was ever made.
If we’re concerned about team chemistry and leadership, then I’d much rather have Aaron Rowand playing for the Phils for $12/year than Ibanez for $11.5/year.
I know that was never an option because Rowand left before last year, Amaro wasn’t the GM last year, Pat Burrell was still under contract and they had Victorino and Werth to take over in CF and RF, maybe the Phils don’t win it all with Rowand blocking those guys, we’re not talking about Rowand we’re talking about Burrell, etc.
I know. I fully understand all of these things. Still, I’d much rather have Aaron Rowand shift to LF. If the Phils traded Ibanez straight-up for Rowand right now, I’d consider it a steal for the Phils.
Anyone in Philly complaining now?
This guy is KILLING it in that small park. Ibanez wOBA and ISO have skyrocked (albeit in a small sample size) in the bandbox in Philly while Pat the Bat’s have dropped off the table.
I think the problem was that we tend to try very hard to isolate player talent on an individual level and remove the effects of team play. So when we look at Pat Burrell and Raul Ibanez over the last few years we compare their wOBA ect, but we often don’t consider the environment in which they produce those numbers (I’m not talking about ballpark factors).
Last year, Ibanez was by far the Mariners best hitter (both Ichiro and Beltre were about .02 points below in wOBA), while Burrell was at most the third best hitter on the Phillies (Howard had a worse wOBA, but barely and Howard had a better .ISO, .SLG, and OPS. Burrell’s ability to get on base through walks, isn’t as impressive when you remember had of a base runner he is).
Ibanez’s success this year is at least a partial result of the production around him. He is probably seeing better pitches this year, as teams are much more worried about Utley and Howard–not to mention Werth, Victorino, and Feliz (off to a hot start, we’ll see if it lasts). Now Ibanez is not going to sustain a .487 wOBA, but he is very likely to out perform Burrell this year. Hell he has already earned half his salary already!
I love you, buttsecks?