How do you view Wieters now?

[mweb]

I NEVER do this, but did the poster "CompuCoach" just try and neg rep me with a snarky remark about Wieters already being above average.

I might be wrong but a 96 OPS+ is not above average.

Getting neg rep for that post is absurd.

However, 96 OPS+ likely is above average for a catcher and when you factor in his defense being very good, there is a solid argument there. But of course last year his OPS+ went down to 89.

[wildcard]

Well, he probably will if he stays healthy because the Twins actually have an understanding of how to use their players...Just as Buck showed he did with the way he handled Wieters last year.

:laughlol:

nuts

[Big Keys Fan]

If this was correct, he would look much better than he does early in the season, when he is coming off of all the rest of the offseason.

His bat looked slow and his swing looked long all season, just as it did in most of his first season.

Improvement in his game has nothing to do with him sitting a few extra games a year...Improvement has to come from him developing into the hitter he needs to be for us...The same development that every young player has to go through.

There is no way that catching 130 games vs 120 games is going to stop that development...This is a Jtrea argument at its finest.

I have asked you before and will ask again, hopefully with an answer. Have you ever played catcher?

Catching takes a serious toll on the body. No matter how good someone is at his size its wear and tear each time he stands and squats. Throw all the stats out the window and use common sense. Look at the size of MLB catchers and one will notice a trend. Size! Most are 6'2 220 and smaller. MW is 6'5 240 that is a lot of body to push up and put down. Keeping in mind catching is a position similar to that of a pitcher is the transitional phase. No matter how hard you work on your conditioning the only real way to get game legs is to play. So regardless of what stats tell you catchers take time to develop and do tire quickly especially early in the season. think about this way, its like running. You start out and tire quickly, however you breath and push through and you gain a second wind. Its tough lifting, running and conditioning and never truly being able to simulate game type conditioning until the season starts. Its not like SS where u can take groundball after groundball. And yes I played the position for many years throw the collegiate level and understand that no matter how great you are time is needed to condition and rest is a requirement for the position especially with his size. Take a look at Mauers injurys (mauer is the only other starting C that is over 6'4) back, knees, meniscus.... Catch the pattern?

Guess what I am trying to say is, no matter the requirement to have a plus plus C they need to be handled with care at this size. It is imperative to have the longevity and health as well as the time to grow into the job. I think Buck understands the wear and tear and will maximize his abilities by doing so. If we expect him to be around and productive for a long time its very important that rest is essential, however that is defined it to eachs own. I just find it hard to read that expectations are 140+ games behind the plate. Most people on here wouldn't be able to walk after catching a 6 inning LL game once a week non the less catching a MLB game5/6 times a week. I know I backed up nothing with stats but experience and understanding will trump them each time! He will progress but needs time to develop and get confident! The last being most important!

[Big Keys Fan]

At some point you are going to stop using that awful comparison because of Mauer's health issues but then again, I doubt it.

So, I have to ask, if the Twins are so good at managing there players explain why Mauer. hasn't played more than 110 games? Also, for your info, Mauer is the only catcher baseball near MW size. So wheter you like it or not its really the only comparison!

[Oriolidae85]

How many games did he DH in September?

And that shouldn't matter...He would have already been worn down to begin with.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=wietema01&t=b&year=2009' rel="external nofollow">

7 games as a DH in September. He was in the minors in the early part of that year (and he was DHing more at AAA - 12 games out of 39 played).

If you look at his hitting productivity, it has a strong correlation to improving the more he DH'd. Of course this is a very small sample size during his rookie year, etc.

[Enjoy Terror]

I feel strongly that the additions of Reynolds and Lee to join Scott as homerun threats will help protect guys like Jones, Wieters and Markakis. I predict the whole lineup benefits from our offseason additions. Another bat like Thome or Vlad would bump Pie off the OD lineup and be even scarier.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I feel strongly that the additions of Reynolds and Lee to join Scott as homerun threats will help protect guys like Jones, Wieters and Markakis. I predict the whole lineup benefits from our offseason additions. Another bat like Thome or Vlad would bump Pie off the OD lineup and be even scarier.

I hope that one or both of you and wildcard are correct. I have never been a big believer in lineup synergy or in the overarching effects of a manager over the course of a full season. I would love to be demonstrated wrong and to have you and wildcard argue all season about whether it's the manager or the lineup protection that has put them on an 820-run pace.

[Enjoy Terror]

I've never believed much in manager changes either, but after that Broncos coach signed up and won six games in a row (Daniels, I think is that guy's name), and the hiring of Buck made us go on a crazy two month tear... I mean aside from those examples, it's happened enough to where I can certainly see why people believe it helps.

I also believe that lineups with fearsome hitters help: with Nick, he was the only guy pitchers wouldn't pitch strikes to because if they happened to walk him then they'd get Ty wigginton, who isn't really scaring anyone. This year I think Nick will see more fastballs to hit because of the fear they may have to face Derrek Lee or Mark Reynolds or Luke Scott. Markakis will be able to hit for more power sitting on fastballs knowing he's not going to get a steady diet of breaking balls. That's how I see it happening. I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone, but I liked it.

[cindyluvsbrady]

I love Matt:)

I know he will be awesome:clap3:

BELIEVE

[cindyluvsbrady]

I blame last year on the SI Cover Jinx. I don't think he will be on the cover heading into this season and should reap the benefits of avoiding the jinx for a second straight year.

I had forgotten about this!

I have 2 copies of the Magizine!

You could be right:)

[Sports Guy]

So, I have to ask, if the Twins are so good at managing there players explain why Mauer. hasn't played more than 110 games? Also, for your info, Mauer is the only catcher baseball near MW size. So wheter you like it or not its really the only comparison!

In most of Mauer's big league seasons, he has missed a big portion of time due to injury.

The one year where he made it through the season healthy, he was around 130 or so games caught.

[Frobby]

If Wieters needs to sit 50 games a year, trade him right now because he is never going to be that good.

There is zero reason he shouldn't be catching 125-135 games a year if he is healthy.

You do realize that last year only 2 catchers in MB caught 125 games, and nobody more than 130, don't you?

It is interesting, there has been a drastic drop in the games started by top catchers the last few years. In 2008, 7 catchers started 130+ games; in 2009 it was 4; in 2010 it was 1.

[Moose Milligan]

Getting neg rep for that post is absurd.

However, 96 OPS+ likely is above average for a catcher and when you factor in his defense being very good, there is a solid argument there. But of course last year his OPS+ went down to 89.

Totally absurd!

Yeah, his defense is damn good, no ones gonna argue that. I mean, I'm happy with a stellar defensive catcher but I can't help but be let down by how he's hit so far. I realize I'm being overly pessimistic with how I've voted in the poll, he has to get better. Even if he's average offensively, it's still nice that he'll be excellent behind the plate.

I just...ugh....I hope this isn't another case of a busted O's prospect. He might not be a bust in the sense that Rowell is a bust, but there's a strong chance he doesn't live up to expectations...in my book, that's a semi-bust.

[Sports Guy]

I NEVER do this, but did the poster "CompuCoach" just try and neg rep me with a snarky remark about Wieters already being above average.

I might be wrong but a 96 OPS+ is not above average.

He did the same thing to me the other day because he didn't like how I graded the offseason.

I always love it when posters give you neg rep but never really post on here....pretty cowardly if you ask me but oh well, when dealing with a message board of all of these people, you are bound to deal with people like that.

I don't really care about the neg rep but the reasoning behind a lot of it is usually pretty stupid.

[DrungoHazewood]

You do realize that last year only 2 catchers in MB caught 125 games, and nobody more than 130, don't you?

It is interesting, there has been a drastic drop in the games started by top catchers the last few years. In 2008, 7 catchers started 130+ games; in 2009 it was 4; in 2010 it was 1.

Catcher-seasons with 130+ games caught by decade:

1870s: 0 (the schedule was much shorter)

1880s: 0

1890s: 1 (Deacon McGuire, 1895)

1900s: 8 (shinguards make their debut)

1910s: 9

1920s: 18

1930s: 20

1940s: 13

1950s: 24

1960s: 47 (expansion; Randy Hundley first to catch 160 games)

1970s: 64

1980s: 58

1990s: 45

2000s: 72

2001-2005: 39

2006-2010: 30

To me, it seems the evidence is pretty weak that catchers are being asked to catch less and less today. As you can see above, the workload in the 2000s was about as high as it's ever been. Per team it might be just a tick below the 1970s, but still quite high. The dip Frobby observed might just be a blip, a consequence of fluctuating talent or injuries, or maybe even current manager tendencies.

In the past, say, before 1960, it was common for teams to play several doubleheaders a week. Some teams occasionally played 40% of the schedule in doubleheaders. And typically a catcher would only catch half of a doubleheader. The numbers reflect this, fewer catchers caught 130+ games in the 50s and before.

With the death of the scheduled doubleheader it appears catcher workloads have more-or-less stabilized, at least using 130+ games as a measure.