Bigger Bust?

[SrMeowMeow]

Sure there is...If you are a 6-8 WAR player, you are a premium guy regardless of position.

If you are a 4 WAR guy, you are one of the best catchers but you aren't a premium, upper echelon talent overall.

What are you talking about? Like I said, Ripken was a perennial 6-8 WAR player as a shortstop. He would have been lucky to be half that as a 1B. And he went to the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. His career OPS is 787.

[Sports Guy]

What are you talking about? Like I said, Ripken was a perennial 6-8 WAR player as a shortstop. He would have been lucky to be half that as a 1B. And he went to the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. His career OPS is 787.

Well, you have to account for the era.

My point is that if Wieters is just an 800 OPS guy but plays great defense and is a 4ish WAR player, he is very good FOR A CATCHER.

But who cares? We need him to be an elite player...An 850-900 OPS guy.

I hate it when people say, well he is doing good for a catcher.

Guys like Mauer and McCann have just been very good hitters, period. That's what Wieters was supposed to be.

[MrOrange82]

Well, you have to account for the era.

My point is that if Wieters is just an 800 OPS guy but plays great defense and is a 4ish WAR player, he is very good FOR A CATCHER.

But who cares? We need him to be an elite player...An 850-900 OPS guy.

I hate it when people say, well he is doing good for a catcher.

Guys like Mauer and McCann have just been very good hitters, period. That's what Wieters was supposed to be.

Uhh...and his point was that Ripken was good for a shortstop.

Ripken was not an elite third baseman, and he wouldn't have been an elite first baseman, OFer, etc.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, you have to account for the era.

My point is that if Wieters is just an 800 OPS guy but plays great defense and is a 4ish WAR player, he is very good FOR A CATCHER.

But who cares? We need him to be an elite player...An 850-900 OPS guy.

I hate it when people say, well he is doing good for a catcher.

Guys like Mauer and McCann have just been very good hitters, period. That's what Wieters was supposed to be.

Fine, let's account for era. Cal Ripken had a career wRC+ of 111. That's our best run estimator scaled for park and league (and therefore era). Matt Wieters' 2011 season that you hate so much? 110.

[The Maestro]

Well, you have to account for the era.

My point is that if Wieters is just an 800 OPS guy but plays great defense and is a 4ish WAR player, he is very good FOR A CATCHER.

But who cares? We need him to be an elite player...An 850-900 OPS guy.

I hate it when people say, well he is doing good for a catcher.

Guys like Mauer and McCann have just been very good hitters, period. That's what Wieters was supposed to be.

So are you saying that he isn't going to be elite? I'm not sure I'm ready to write him off after 2+ years just yet.

[mweb]

Well, you have to account for the era.

My point is that if Wieters is just an 800 OPS guy but plays great defense and is a 4ish WAR player, he is very good FOR A CATCHER.

But who cares? We need him to be an elite player...An 850-900 OPS guy.

I hate it when people say, well he is doing good for a catcher.

Guys like Mauer and McCann have just been very good hitters, period. That's what Wieters was supposed to be.

You're not using the right word for your point when you say player rather than hitter. You corrected it before but you keep on using it and defending it. When you're talking about a certain WAR being elite, you can't say regardless of position. I mean if Wieters hit well enough to be a 8 WAR player regardless of position, his WAR at C would be off the charts.

Call it semantics if you like, but I think that's what is causing the problem I and others are having with what you're saying. It's hard to converse when people are assigning different meanings to words and phrases.

See bust, which Pedro apparently thinks means somewhat disappointing to date opposed to what just about what everyone else thinks it means.

[Moose Milligan]

Wieters by and large hasn't lived up to the lofty expectations that were cast upon him. However, he's really picked it up this year and carries hope into next season....but at no point during his time in the majors could anyone look at him and honestly say "he doesn't belong in the majors."

You can't say the same about Matusz. What an incredibly horrible season he's had...I can't even think of a worse season by an O's starter and that's saying a hell of a lot.

[Sports Guy]

So are you saying that he isn't going to be elite? I'm not sure I'm ready to write him off after 2+ years just yet.

No, I am saying he isn't as good as we thought he would be right now. Maybe that will change but until the last month or so, he was just a good player...we need(ed) him to be more than that.