In all probability, Dodgers manager Don Mattingly has absolutely nothing against utility outfielder/first basemen Scott Van Slyke. I mean, how could he? The 27-year-old Chesterfield, Missouri native, who Mattingly affectionately calls “Slykie,” has had several huge clutch hits over the last couple of seasons, including a couple of walk-off home runs – none greater that the one on September 10, 2013 against the Arizona Diamondbacks as the Dodgers zeroed in on clinching the NL West title.
Why, then, does Mattingly continually snub the extremely likable son of former major leaguer Andy Van Slyke? He did it big time in the 2013 NLCS when he opted to go with (then) 36-year-old Michael Young, who was clearly at the end of his 14-year MLB career and who retired this past January, in spite of receiving several offers from the Dodgers to return as a utility bench player in 2014. In fact, during the 2013 post-season, Mattingly used Young in nine games where he hit a dismal .100 (1 for 10). For reasons known only to him, Mattingly left the much more powerful Van Slyke on the bench throughout the entire playoffs. He had zero, not one single plate appearance.
So here we are, five games into the 2014 season, and on Tuesday afternoon in a 3-2 ballgame against the San Diego Padres, Mattingly had Van Slyke on deck in the top of the 9th inning to pinch hit for J.P. Howell. But after second baseman Dee Gordon made out on a poorly executed bunt attempt, Mattingly pulled Van Slyke back and had Mike Baxter pinch hit for Howell instead. Baxter promptly struck out looking for the second out of the inning.
Now granted, Baxter’s .268 spring training batting average was better than Van Slyke’s .211 batting average, but Van Slyke had two home runs and seven RBIs this spring compared to Baxter’s zero home runs and four RBIs. Once Gordon made out, why wouldn’t you send Van Slyke up there to try to hit one out of the park when you are leading by only one run? It’s decisions like this that I thought were the reason why Trey Hillman was fired as Mattingly’s bench coach and Tim Wallach brought in to replace him – to give the three-year manager a little advice in these types of situations.
It’s hard to get worked up over this less than a week into the new season, but with the lack of offense already rearing it’s ugly head (again), why not go with a proven power hitter? – or did Mattingly leave his recollection of Van Slyke’s dramatic off-the-wall double and over the (opposite field) wall home run in Australia with his blue NASA light bulb?
That is a hard one to fathom out. I just couldn’t understand why SVS wasn’t used as a pinch hitter in the NLCS or even gotten a start.
The usual cry is no power off the bench, which the team didn’t have by excluding SVS. They still don’t have a lot.
Very perceptive comment regarding the firing of Trey Hillman and the hiring of Tim Wallach, supposedly to help Mattingly learn to manage his team better. Well, so far sadly nothing has changed. I think DM is probably a very nice man, but he should have been a minor league manager for a few years before trying to be a major league one. Many of his decisions are mind-boggling (SVS being prime example) at the very least and in the end will probably cost the Dodgers – if not the pennant – at least the NL Championship. For a team with a payroll of close $250 million, you would think that the Guggenheim bosses would want the best GM and manager that money can buy–and that, by far, is neither Colletti or Mattingly. Keeping both only means one more year of frustration…
Nice article Ron and all I can say is I totally agree with you.
Was the pitcher Baxter was facing right-handed? Didn’t see the game, but that might have been why. Also they probably want to see what they have in Baxter before making a decision on him when Kemp comes back.
Either way, I agree that SVS should get way more playing time. He produces every time he plays.
That was Mattingly’s argument, but SVS has proven (time and again) they he hits lefties and righties.
My guess would be that SVS has options and Baxter does not.
Baxter has one more year of options.