Comments on: Miguel Olivo’s Hat Trick

By: Joe R

Joe R — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:04:57 +0000

I think there’s a typo on this WPA chart. It says “M. Olivo walked”
http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2009-09-15&team=Tigers&dh=0&season=2009

confirm or deny this, someone.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:17:03 +0000

But the Royals can’t get rid of Olivo. That would destroy their apparent plan to acquire every member of the 93-loss 2005 Seattle Mariners.

They already have four of them.

By: PhD Brian

PhD Brian — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:08:53 +0000

I think your right. They do not have much choice but to play Olivo. He is decent defensively and has some power, so he is not useless. But that patience is hard to believe

By: Nats Fan

Nats Fan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:05:25 +0000

hey it gets hot in KC. Somebody has to get the air moving around in that stadium to cool the fans. How else are they going to sell tickets?

By: glp

glp — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:21:12 +0000

Olivo does have a mutual option for next year…It seems a foregone conclusion that John Buck will be non-tendered, and without much in the way of usable catchers in the high minors, I kind of expect to feel the cool breeze of Miguel’s hacks for another year.

By: HOLLA(R)

HOLLA(R) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:14:21 +0000

Absolutely agreed. The unexpectedness of the second graph made it even more wonderful than it is on its own. Thanks for the laugh, R.J.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:11:45 +0000

I see the typo too, and I am glad someone made a joke about it. But I thought lions were too expensive, I was under the impression that it was whatever they could find in the nearby wild.

By: James

James — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:19:35 +0000

no joke – caught me off-guard. hilarious.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:13:22 +0000

The frowny face is probably my favorite graph ever on this site.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:07:42 +0000

In Tommy Agee’s defense, in 168 AD lions were often put on the field to add excitement (not to give GMDM any ideas). Sorry. Probably the typo will be fixed after I post this and the above statement will no longer make any sense.

I’m guessing that the rarity of this feat has more to do with the fact that nobody in their right mind would play some one with this particular skill than it has to do with the rarity of the skill.