Comments on: Game 89, Mariners at Indians

By: msb

msb — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:27:29 +0000

Dave Niehaus referenced this bit of history when he first associated the term with Franklin Gutierrez.

Dave has used it (sparingly) in the past, as well, for other players.

By: Kazinski

Kazinski — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:04:24 +0000

The knock on Wilson is his defense. This teams outfield is built around defense, and hopefully the infield will get there too. Bringing in an all hit, no defense outfielder is the last thing we need. If we need to bring somebody up it should be Saunders, we need D to go with the O. And Saunders AAA .907 ops is probably more legitimate as Wilson’s .971ops in AA.

If you want to make a case for Wilson, then he should learn to play first then he can compete with Shelton for the righthanded backup 1B/DH.

By: Marinerz51

Marinerz51 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:08:52 +0000

Mike Wilson at least deserves a shot to either prove or disprove him self. He at least would be an instant upgrade over anyone currantly on our bench. Also I’m not saying he will put up Ryan Howard numbers. I was just pointing out their simular career paths. As Howard didn’t make his big league debut till he was 25, Wilson is 26. Look at what Nelson Cruz is doing with the Rangers. You never know what you have until you actually test the product.

By: djw

djw — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:39:10 +0000

f for instance, a batter whether it be a LH or a RH batter was let’s say 1 for 20 lifetime against someone like a Johan Santana or even a marginal pitcher like Paul Bird, that has to be worth something. No? If anyone is 1 for 20 against anyone on my team, he is sitting out that day.

I thought Dave (or someone) did a post on this once, but maybe I read it somewhere else. At any rate, my understanding is that normal projections taking only handedness into account have far more predictive value than even the most extreme (ie, 1/20 or 12/20) pitcher-batter stats. Breadbaker is surely correct that a smart manager might think about matchups in a more subjective way, but the actual stats are beyond worthless.

By: JMHawkins

JMHawkins — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:42:43 +0000

Interesting about the Death To Flying Things nickname. Really doesn’t sound like a 19th Century phrase at all, but very cool.

By: joser

joser — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:32:04 +0000

A funny comment about the Red Sox trying to dump Julio Lugo and the Mariners on the YFSF website: “hey, if the Mariners can trade Yuneski to the royals, anything is possible!”

That's one (just one) of the things that made the Yuni trade so ridiculous -- if KC had waited, they could've gotten a Red Sox cast off for free. They still could, and he'd still be an upgrade over Betancourt (Lugo is -.3 WAR so far this year, but Yuni is -.8, which means Lugo is a one win upgrade over an entire season).

By: SeasonTix

SeasonTix — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:19:42 +0000

Death to Flying Things

By: mln

mln — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:11:54 +0000

Interesting history about the nickname “Death to Flying Things.”

But the question begs, who in the MLB should be dubbed “Life to Flying Things”?

By: littlesongs

littlesongs — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:54:48 +0000

IIRC, Niehaus picked it up from the nickname of some 1890’s ballplayer.

Death to Flying Things was a nickname originally given to Robert Vavasour Ferguson. A short time later it was also bestowed on John Curtis Chapman. Both players had careers in the 19th century. Dave Niehaus referenced this bit of history when he first associated the term with Franklin Gutierrez.

By: bilbo27

bilbo27 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:51:14 +0000

Oh and I meant to add, also factor in the players normal numbers (line drive rate, BAIP, swing and miss, etc) against all pitchers. Could be crap, but just something I’ve been musing over lately. It would be really nice for someone to come up with a good model (even if not perfect), to determine how good player X is against pitcher Y. The current model managers use of using things like batting average over 20 AB’s or whatever is so incredibly bad that just about anything you’d think would be an improvement. Again, thoughts?