Measuring Wieters' impact on Orioles isn't easy - Kevin Van Valkenburg, The Baltimore Sun

[Sports Guy]

Anyone know what the ERA was with Tatum cataching vs. Wieter catching once Buck was hired. I dont know. I just know that a myth about Wieters being some great game caller is gaining steam. Like Wieters has some secret knowledge that most other catchers in the game don't have. Prove it to me.

Right...This is my point. People are acting as if Wieters is the only guy in MLB who works well with his pitching staff. People are really starting to go overboard with this stuff.

[Stotle]

Right...This is my point. People are acting as if Wieters is the only guy in MLB who works well with his pitching staff. People are really starting to go overboard with this stuff.

Both sides are going overboard, to the point that it's tough to find actual measured opinions on the matter. I understand why, but yuck...

[Sports Guy]

Both sides are going overboard, to the point that it's tough to find actual measured opinions on the matter. I understand why, but yuck...

Do you think the Orioles drafted Wieters with the intentions that he would be a GG caliber catcher and 720ish OPS hitter?

[Stotle]

Do you think the Orioles drafted Wieters with the intentions that he would be a GG caliber catcher and 720ish OPS hitter?

That's a completely reasonable follow-up to my post...

[Going Underground]

Here is what I'll say about Wieters, and the main reason I wrote the article.

It's interesting to me that a guy who was so embraced (ridiculously so) by the SABR community, was completely abandoned by them after 200 games in the big leagues, yet he is still the darling of the other part of baseball culture, the grizzled "it's all about intangibles" guys.

Arrieta's awful start with Fox behind the plate, I think, only confirms some of what the Showalters of the world believe. A certain part of the game, he gets. It really does matter. He seems to understand how to pitch to hitters. And maybe he's so worried about that, he can't focus on the other part. I covered the game where he got his first hit. It was a rocket to dead center off Verlander for a triple. It does seem like he's regressed as a hitter since then, at least in terms of making good contact and driving the ball.

Mauer (who I think might be the best hitting catcher ever when he's done) was a completely absurd comparison for the Baseball Prospectus guys to make, and if you look back and read some of the stories, they were going so far as to say as a minor leaguer, he was already potentially better than Mauer. The PETCOTA stuff predicted he might have the greatest rookie season of all time based on his minor league stats. I don't know how someone even writes that with a straight face, but it's not surprising how quickly the SABR people have written him off since he didn't live up to the absurd bar the set for him.

Now, I find the numbers people very interesting. I'm not one of those people who dismiss it as nerd science. But I'm a big believer in matters of the human mind and human heart. Baseball isn't 100 percent science, and it isn't 100 percent poetry. It's a little of both. Some people simply react differently to pressure than others, even if a large sample size says clutch hitting does not exist, and projections -- while interesting -- mean little to me. Was he over-hyped? Absolutely. Even if he does turn out to be decent hitter, which he may still.

But I would say there is a good lesson here: It's ok to be skeptical of hype, even as fan. Because a lot of people in my field are in the hype business. And keep in mind that a lot of No. 5 picks in the draft never even make the majors. That's a bust. To get an every day starter from that slot, someone who is arguably (at least according to scouts) one of the best catchers in the American League is not a wasted pick. Picking Jeff Clemmet at No. 3 when Ryan Zimmerman and Ryan Braun are sitting there, that's a disaster.

(BTW, I got the idea from watching the Tampa series, which seems like forever ago now, but I did read many of the intelligent takes on this board after it came together and wish I was a Baseball Prospectus premium subscriber so I could have included the stuff about him having a worse OPS than Izturis with two strikes. I wrote it during the Detroit series. One of the things I'm learning about covering baseball is how the narrative doesn't stop changing. He looks lost as a hitter this year, but it's only 25 at bats, so I'm not sure it's fair to declare him a black hole yet. But as always, I appreciate you guys reading the stories in the Sun, and hope you will continue to do so.)

A one game sample with Jake Fox catching is not a big enough sample size. If Wieters has to miss two games with a strained hamstring,and they bring Tatum up for those two games. Britton and Guthrie both throw five hit shutouts,does that make Tatum a great pitch caller?

[Sports Guy]

That's a completely reasonable follow-up to my post...

No need to keep going with your message, as it has nothing to do with anything, so I just decided to take it another way.

[The Rick]

Right...This is my point. People are acting as if Wieters is the only guy in MLB who works well with his pitching staff. People are really starting to go overboard with this stuff.

It's a simple case of people confusing causation with correlation.

The bottom line is, to me, that it's a combination of Wieters being solid behind the plate (If Buck says he is, I believe it), and also our young pitching staff growing up a little bit, and being EXTREMELY talented. I mean he doesn't have the pitching rotations of the last 13 years throwing to him. The group in our rotation now are, for the most part, once blue chip prospects who have a ton of talent.

[flashjordnk]

I'm not going to go through the rosters of every team to satisfy something you should already know.

I mean look at a guy like Tatum. He made the club last year because the pitchers loved throwing to him. Remember, Guthrie didn't even want Wieters catching him before..he preferred Tatum. There have been plenty of guys, throughout the years, that have been able to carve their niche as good signal callers/defensive catchers and been able to stay in the game longer because of it.

If you have watched baseball for more than 5 minutes, you know this to be true.

But I disagree with you. Look I think there is a difference between a guy that players like to throw to, and a guy who really gets the game. Tatum isn't on the roster this year, and if you want to make this as your point, you'd understand that means we can keep one more guy on the roster to help this team.

If not keeping Tatum makes bringing in a guy like Vlad possible, aren't we talking about a pretty substantial upgrade. Tatum was never a starter, so he's not the kind of guy I think is even in the same conversation as Wieters. Do you really think Tatum could put up a 700+ OPS over 400+ PA's? Over 477 PA's he has a 592 OPS. Over 916 ABs MW has put up a 714. If not having to carry Tatum means we add all the value of Vlad, I'll gladly say MW is adding something to this team that is difficult to quantify.

Are you saying Tatum has the same value as Wieters? It's not even close. MW has a Caught Stealing career percentage of 28%. 12% better than Tatum.

If you watched Tatum for 5 minutes last year, you'd know he's not even in the same class as MW. Yes, I want you to go through the rosters and find a 714 OPS guy over 900 Plate Appearances that throws out runners at 28% and is loved by his pitching staff and regarded by his coaches as part of his pitchers successes. These guys do not grow on trees. Oh yeah...and find me one that's 24 years old while your at it.

[Sports Guy]

It's a simple case of people confusing causation with correlation.

The bottom line is, to me, that it's a combination of Wieters being solid behind the plate (If Buck says he is, I believe it), and also our young pitching staff growing up a little bit, and being EXTREMELY talented. I mean he doesn't have the pitching rotations of the last 13 years throwing to him. The group in our rotation now are, for the most part, blue chip prospects who have a ton of talent.

Right....Do people think we would pitching this well if our rotation included Eaton and Trachsel?

I mean, how about giving some credit to the talent of the pitchers and just the fact that they are gaining maturity and experience?

I have no doubts that Wieters is a big help. As I said, I agree with KVV that you can't really measure what he brings. This is the same thing I said about Buck. You had people like Drungo saying the difference between the worst and best manager was only 3-5 wins...I think that's total bs. What a manager does can't be measured. Now, I don't think he is someone that changes us by 30 games or something crazy like that but a much larger difference than 5 wins can't be discounted.

But none of this has anything to do with Wieters' ability to hit. We need him to be a more productive hitter, especially long term.

[Going Underground]

Last years stats when Matusz was pitching (thru Aug. 10th):

Jake Fox - 32.40 ERA .556/.667/1.111/1.778

Craig Tatum - 3.09 ERA .202/.278/.328/.606

Matt Wieters 5.28 ERA .288/.353/.429/.782

http://www.orioleshangout.com/blog/tonys-take/146/in-depth-look-at-brian-matusz

[Stotle]

No need to keep going with your message, as it has nothing to do with anything, so I just decided to take it another way.

Haha. Fair enough!

My answer would be that I don't expect Wieters can be easily projected at this point. There is too great a discrepency between performance and ability for it to be as simple as "he isn't good enough." Now, maybe it ultimately ends up at that conclusion, but it shouldn't be there now. I guess I should say that aside from some general comments from people that his swing looks slow and long and he doesn't hit the ball hard, I haven't seen any real disection of his swing, his approach, his demeanor at the plate, his between game routines or his in-game routines. I think there has been some solidly reasoned guesswork stemming from results and some general observations, but nothing close to convincing evidence of a hopelessly flawed player or someone that can't figure it out.

[O-The-Memories]

Do you think the Orioles drafted Wieters with the intentions that he would be a GG caliber catcher and 720ish OPS hitter?

No, and that's a good and valid point that I haven't seen addressed. There's nobody, and I mean nobody, that I talk to in the real world who has labeled Matt Wieters as anything other massive dissapointment so far when it comes to his hitting. After this year if he keeps on hitting like this, he's a bust. Plain and simple. We can't afford a black hole in this lineup when we expected so much more. I keep on saying this, trade Wieters now while you can still salvage a good haul.

You know where the word "intangibles" comes into play the most? Unathletic guys who scratch and claw themselves onto a roster. When you start hearing Wieters being called scrappy, hard-nosed, etc that'll be a cop-out too. I heard that about guys like David Eckstein who were overrated because of "intangibles". If Wieters turns into an Eckstein clone behind the plate, we'd be upset, right?

[KAZ97]

It does make for an interesting debate. If Wieters OPS was .050 higher, would it be more beneficial to the Orioles if came at the cost of defense? The stats vs. intangibles argument will never be settled, but part of the reason for that is there's no stat that can quantify what the outcome might have been had Wieters told Britton to throw a slider to Teixiera instead of a change-up. How do you quantify the tag he made last year at the plate on a good -- but not great -- throw by Patterson that literally saved a win and ended the game? (Can't remember who the opponent was. Simon was pitching.) A regular catcher can't go across his body like that, catch the ball cleanly, then dive back toward the plate and make a great tag. But maybe if his OPS is .050 higher, the O's are up three runs there instead of one. It's a debate will no definitive answer.

Why can't we estimate Wieters defensive effects?

In the past two years, Wieters has been behind the plate for 8127 plate appearances. During the same time frame, 5 other catchers caught the same pitchers infront of the same defense. If Wieters has a significant effect on pitch calling, you'd expect the offensive performance of the opposing team to be worse.

Matt Wieters: .278/.344/.449

Other Catchers: .279/.346/.464

Pretty similar. But that just captures pitch calling. As you mention, there are other aspects of catching that might prevent runs, such as controlling the running game, blocking the plate. If Wieters is significantly better, we expected a difference in overall run prevention:

ERA with Matt Wieters catching: 4.75

ERA with other catchers: 5.06

So one rough estimate is that Wieters' defense saves us about a 1/4 run per game, due primarily to his control of the running game and other attributes.

I'm sure someone can inform regarding how good an offensive catcher one as to be to create 1/4 run per game over and above what Wieters gives us offensively.

[Sports Guy]

But I disagree with you

Good.

Tatum isn't on the roster this year

And its killing Buck. Why does he want Tatum here? Because he calls a good game and pitchers like throwing to him. He all but threw Fox under the bus in the Arrieta start.

.

Do you really think Tatum could put up a 700+ OPS over 400+ PA's? Over 477 PA's he has a 592 OPS. Over 916 ABs MW has put up a 714. If not having to carry Tatum means we add all the value of Vlad, I'll gladly say MW is adding something to this team that is difficult to quantify.

You obviously aren't getting the point. No where did I even begin to mention Tatum's bat or his ability to be an everyday player. I am merely saying that he is a guy that has a reputation for calling a good game who pitchers like to throw to.

Are you saying Tatum has the same value as Wieters?

The fact that you even come up with that shows that discussing this any further with you is, as usual, a waste of time.

[Stotle]

No, and that's a good and valid point that I haven't seen addressed. There's nobody, and I mean nobody, that I talk to in the real world who has labeled Matt Wieters as anything other massive dissapointment so far when it comes to his hitting. After this year if he keeps on hitting like this, he's a bust. Plain and simple. We can't afford a black hole in this lineup when we expected so much more. I keep on saying this, trade Wieters now while you can still salvage a good haul.

You know where the word "intangibles" comes into play the most? Unathletic guys who scratch and claw themselves onto a roster. When you start hearing Wieters being called scrappy, hard-nosed, etc that'll be a cop-out too. I heard that about guys like David Eckstein who were overrated because of "intangibles". If Wieters turns into an Eckstein clone behind the plate, we'd be upset, right?

This is just wrong. Maybe it's true when it comes to sports writing, but in the baseball world there are countless genuine talents and impact players that are described as having positive "intangibles".