How do you view Wieters now?

[Big Keys Fan]

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.

"Mauer’s left heel nags him. His right shoulder aches. Two other injuries – his back and his hip, for which the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported he receives treatment – are something neither he nor the organization will address publicly. Because while the heel and shoulder are more pesky, anything having to do with a back or hip, let alone both, inspires a great deal of fear."

by Andy Hutchins • Jul 28, 2010 (Twins still had 61 games remaining)

Joe Mauer missed the entire month of April in 2009 due to a lower back injury.

The one year????? Man Minnesota better get rid of him right now! Also, take a look at his injury history. When you find an injury that isnt related to his wear and tear (from catching) let me know. You get dinged up catching WAY more than any other position on the field. Look at why teams draft so many catchers, productive shelf life is small overall for the position. You just dont get it, until you wear the tools of ignorance (catchers gear) and take a couple of balls of your face or in the goods, there is really no room evaluate based on stats. As pain thresholds will differ from individual to individual.

Just WAY to many variables that cant be put into stats, you just need to walk away from this one, there is an obvious disconnect from watching and analyzing stats to the reality of the wear and tear of the position.

[mweb]

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.

Oh I agree with what you're saying here. I don't think he'll be a complete bust because he's still very likely to be an above average catcher, but he has been very disappointing to date with the bat. I was hoping and expecting much more from him to date. Hopefully this is the year he becomes a star caliber player.

[Frobby]

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.

Thanks for the interesting data. I agree with your conclusions.

I think my main point is that Wieters is Wieters. How many games he should play at C should be judged based on (1) how steep the drop is when he isn't behind the plate, and (2) how he responds to his workload. I really wouldn't care if the average starting catcher started 130 games; if it was clear that Wieters would hit much better if he only started 120 games behind the dish, I'd probably be in favor of it.

Anyway, I don't think Buck is the kind of manager who goes by rote on this kind of thing. He's a keen observer, and if he sees Wieters is dragging, he'll back him off a little, and if he doesn't feel Wieters needs extra rest, he'll play him. I believe Buck is a better judge of things like that than Trembley was.

[flashjordnk]

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.

You also cannot discount the decrease in steroids as well as the stoppage of amphetamines here either.

I'd be curious to break down the years more specifically too. Were the late 80's more of the 130+ games.

With testing and amphetamines I would be surprised if this number doesn't dip again next year. The 70's also seems like a somewhat interesting year because of the start of the DH during that period. I'm not sure it would have any effect but certainly an interesting decade to see the second highest total.

[scOtt]

Thanks for the interesting data. I agree with your conclusions.

I think my main point is that Wieters is Wieters. How many games he should play at C should be judged based on (1) how steep the drop is when he isn't behind the plate, and (2) how he responds to his workload. I really wouldn't care if the average starting catcher started 130 games; if it was clear that Wieters would hit much better if he only started 120 games behind the dish, I'd probably be in favor of it.

Anyway, I don't think Buck is the kind of manager who goes by rote on this kind of thing. He's a keen observer, and if he sees Wieters is dragging, he'll back him off a little, and if he doesn't feel Wieters needs extra rest, he'll play him. I believe Buck is a better judge of things like that than Trembley was.

Agreed. This is just MHO, I think Trembley would have been worried to take Wieters out of the offense, while Buck is secure enough in his place to do what is best for the team. Not worry about what a lot of screaming hyenas might be saying that day.