Matt Wieters needs to be benched for a few days

[SerenityNow]

Bd0493 can you just tell me what your goal is in a short post? Your self important posts are exhausting and I'm just trying to figure out your endgame. Wieters is what in your opinion a top 20 hitting catcher? What do you think his OPS will be this year?

[TradeAngelos]

Innings Caught in 2012:

386.1 - Yadier Molina

380.2 - Matt Wieters

378.2 - A.J. Pierzynski (gesundheit)

362.1 - J.P. Arencibia

341.2 - Alex Avila

340.1 - Brian McCann

322.1 - Jonathan Lucroy

321.2 - Carlos Santana

321.1 - Buster Posey

218.0 - Joe Mauer

Well, there it is. Matt's caught more innings this year than any other catcher mentioned apart from Molina. A.J. is close behind, but after that there's a substantial drop-off. Am I going to discount the rest factor because the two guys sandwiching Wieters are playing WAY over their heads? Both Molina (.914 OPS in 2012, .718 career) and Pierzynski (.846 OPS in 2012, .749 career) will come back down to Earth eventually.

And you know what? Even if they DON'T come back down to Earth, that wouldn't make a bit of difference. The question has never been "is it possible to be a great catcher with minimal rest?" The question is whether additional rest might help what appears to be a clearly-overworked Wieters. And my original point was not that Wieters is a .1000 OPS monster who's just waiting for some extra nappy-time before emerging. It was that saying that "Wieters is what he is" (i.e., a .750-.775 OPS player) oversimplifies the necessary math. Getting thrown behind the plate at the clip he's been thrown? Sure, that's probably the kind of production you're going to get. But I'd wager that his offensive numbers would improve if he wasn't so heavily leaned on defensively.

Similarly, the question has never been "is he a Hall of Famer," "is he a better arm wrestler than Jesus Christ," or any other strawman tossed into the discussion by TA.

Matt's logged a lot of innings. I think he should log fewer innings in order for his offensive production to rise substantially. The Orioles have put a tremendous amount of pressure on Wieters thus far, and writing him off as a ".750-.775" OPS guy without accounting for the idea that...maybe he's just ----ing winded is ridiculous.

Oh, and if you want to take this academic exercise into TradeAngelos territory, why don't you check out what happened, both in terms of games played and production, to all those catchers he mentioned once they completed their age 29-31 seasons. I already have. Suffice it to say that anecdotal evidence (clearly, the best kind...right, TA?) supports the idea that giving a young catcher more frequent breathers is a good idea.

EDIT: to add Alex Avila.

LOL.

Why don't you do some historical analysis instead of using players who are babied in a way similar to Wieters and most players in 2012.

The bar is set so low these days it isn't even funny. Use ANY catchers you want, of all talent levels, even though Wieters is "one of the best in the game" according to most. See what "anecdotal" evidence you come up with. Maybe you can throw in journeyman who sucked at the plate to back up your theory.

Jones said it best.... "Tired? Who is tired?"

Absolutely comical.

[MrOrange82]

LOL.

Why don't you do some historical analysis instead of using players who are babied in a way similar to Wieters and most players in 2012.

The bar is set so low these days it isn't even funny. Use ANY catchers you want, of all talent levels, even though Wieters is "one of the best in the game" according to most. See what "anecdotal" evidence you come up with. Maybe you can throw in journeyman who sucked at the plate to back up your theory.

Jones said it best.... "Tired? Who is tired?"

Absolutely comical.

And pitchers should all throw 9 innings per start, and DH's don't exist, and teams play fewer than 162 games per season, and steroids haven't been evented/aren't widely available, and...oh, I don't know...should we go back to segregation? I mean, Babe Ruth is the best player ever, right?

What historical analysis did you even provide, and what use is analysis at all if it doesn't account for context/Wieters' actual peers?

Your commentary extends so far beyond useless that it's practically on par with a dead language. It's as though you're being fed lines via cue card that were hastily thrown together by hungover, unpaid interns at a backwater media outlet. Ya heard, Perd?

[Flash- bd]

Bd0493 can you just tell me what your goal is in a short post? Your self important posts are exhausting and I'm just trying to figure out your endgame. Wieters is what in your opinion a top 20 hitting catcher? What do you think his OPS will be this year?

Er...self-important? Okay, since you want a short post here it is: I saw TradeAngelos getting attacked for two valid points, 1) Matt Wieters has simply regressed closer back to his career averages (I couldn't believe he was actually bashed for posting that Matt Wieters is a .750-.775 OPS player, he's shown that over 1,500 ABs. If that were said about any other played people would be nodding there heads saying, yes, yes, savvy post, he's taking the realistic view that one.) 2) This whole theory about Wieters' drop in production--or failure to meet expected/hoped for production--being attributable to his usage/tiredness from catching so much is a crutch, with nothing in it.

If you want more proof that 2) is a silly point, just see today's game: Wieters starting his 3rd day in a row at C (6th or 7th G in a row, I believe) while our backup C DHs. Buck and Matt are clearly awfully concerned about the effect his poor, tired legs are having on him at this point in the season!

MrOrange, as I'm still complying with SerenityNow's conditions, I'll answer your post quickly: your post is springing leaks in its logic, but again, the idea being proposed is that Wieters' lack of offensive production this season is somehow accounted for by his usage....where, may I ask, are you drawing that cause-effect relationship from? You've said a lot to muddy the point--including some stuff that actually works against the very point you want to make (see your first couple of sentences)--but what have you said that actually defends your theory?

[MrOrange82]

MrOrange, as I'm still complying with SerenityNow's conditions, I'll answer your post quickly: your post is springing leaks in its logic, but again, the idea being proposed is that Wieters' lack of offensive production this season is somehow accounted for by his usage....where, may I ask, are you drawing that cause-effect relationship from? You've said a lot to muddy the point--including some stuff that actually works against the very point you want to make (see your first couple of sentences)--but what have you said that actually defends your theory?

You know what this reminds me of? "Prove God exists. No, you prove God doesn't exist."

Matt Wieters isn't Yadier Molina, Buster Posey, or any other player. Matt Wieters has caught more innings in 2012 than almost every other "top" catcher in the game. IMO, and in the opinions of a number of other posters, Wieters has looked tired/sluggish at times this year, which is unsurprising given the amount of time he's spent behind the plate (and the extent to which the pitching staff seems to rely on him to avoid imploding).

Can anyone say with certainty that he'd improve offensively with rest? Of course not. He has to actually GET the rest before a cause/effect relationship can be shown. You're the one who tried to use games played as a talisman against the idea that Wieters' catching responsibilities were out of line with those of his peers, and I showed you that, yes, Wieters' time behind the plate almost puts him in a class by himself. You and TradeAngelos chose to "muddy the waters" of this conversation by throwing largely-irrelevant, cursorily researched statistics into the mix.

When you get right down to it...what can you say that proves with any kind of certainty that Wieters wouldn't improve with additional rest? If you're intellectually honest (which you haven't demonstrated thus far), you'd acknowledge that you can't say any such thing. This entire time I've used words like "might" and "wager that" to describe my opinions regarding Wieters' use and potential production. I've shown you stats that prove he's caught a lot compared to his peers. I can't prove, and you can't disprove, that Wieters would, absolutely, get better offensively until he's used more judiciously by Buck.

And that's the main problem I have with your (and TA's) "arguments." You both assert opinions as facts, yet demand black/white facts from other posters when you're at a loss to concretely prove your own points. If you don't think that Wieters' offensive output would improve with additional time off, that's your prerogative. But saying that it definitely would not? Well, prove it.

[weams]

He's officially Red Hot at bat again.

[Flash- bd]

You know what this reminds me of? "Prove God exists. No, you prove God doesn't exist."

Matt Wieters isn't Yadier Molina, Buster Posey, or any other player. Matt Wieters has caught more innings in 2012 than almost every other "top" catcher in the game. IMO, and in the opinions of a number of other posters, Wieters has looked tired/sluggish at times this year, which is unsurprising given the amount of time he's spent behind the plate (and the extent to which the pitching staff seems to rely on him to avoid imploding).

Can anyone say with certainty that he'd improve offensively with rest? Of course not. He has to actually GET the rest before a cause/effect relationship can be shown. You're the one who tried to use games played as a talisman against the idea that Wieters' catching responsibilities were out of line with those of his peers, and I showed you that, yes, Wieters' time behind the plate almost puts him in a class by himself. You and TradeAngelos chose to "muddy the waters" of this conversation by throwing largely-irrelevant, cursorily researched statistics into the mix.

When you get right down to it...what can you say that proves with any kind of certainty that Wieters wouldn't improve with additional rest? If you're intellectually honest (which you haven't demonstrated thus far), you'd acknowledge that you can't say any such thing. This entire time I've used words like "might" and "wager that" to describe my opinions regarding Wieters' use and potential production. I've shown you stats that prove he's caught a lot compared to his peers. I can't prove, and you can't disprove, that Wieters would, absolutely, get better offensively until he's used more judiciously by Buck.

And that's the main problem I have with your (and TA's) "arguments." You both assert opinions as facts, yet demand black/white facts from other posters when you're at a loss to concretely prove your own points. If you don't think that Wieters' offensive output would improve with additional time off, that's your prerogative. But saying that it definitely would not? Well, prove it.

Hah! I love it, using every specious, rhetorical trick in the book to try and win the argument, though you keep changing the rules and topic of the argument from post to post.

I haven't demonstrated I'm intellectually honest! Hilarious, coming from you. Without stating the obviously relevant proverb here, I decline to discuss with you further, it's clearly not worth it. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty! (I love it!) and sensibility can go through the last two pages of this thread and see what's what. I only came in here to back up a poster who was getting flamed for saying things that really didn't merit a flaming, and to try and flesh out the somewhat reductive argument he was making, because there is some merit to the fleshed out version of it. Clearly I wasted my time.

And though this will qualify as a potshot, I like to maintain my good humor, so I'll allow myself it: This--"You know what this reminds me of? "Prove God exists. No, you prove God doesn't exist" is a fantastically stupid analogy, and worst, the most obvious one available, the equivalent of a writer comparing a beautiful woman's skin to porcelain, or something "unique like a snowflake". Fitting you would choose it, though, as from what you've shown here I can well imagine you engaged in such, well, reductive arguments.

EDIT: to prove I'm not engaging in the same kind of prevarication as you--the truth is I'm really done, after this edit, wasting my time with this--I've bolded above the sentences in your post where you are either changing the grounds of the argument, using a fallacy (esp. a lot of strawman fallacies in there), or simply referring to something that I never asserted, or was even part of the argument that I was making in the first place. If anyone else wants to waste their time with you, they can go back and look at the thread, as I've said.

[MrOrange82]

Hah! I love it, using every specious, rhetorical trick in the book to try and win the argument, though you keep changing the rules and topic of the argument from post to post.

I haven't demonstrated I'm intellectually honest! Hilarious, coming from you. Without stating the obviously relevant proverb here, I decline to discuss with you further, it's clearly not worth it. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty! (I love it!) and sensibility can go through the last two pages of this thread and see what's what. I only came in here to back up a poster who was getting flamed for saying things that really didn't merit a flaming, and to try and flesh out the somewhat reductive argument he was making, because there is some merit to the fleshed out version of it. Clearly I wasted my time.

And though this will qualify as a potshot, I like to maintain my good humor, so I'll allow myself it: This--"You know what this reminds me of? "Prove God exists. No, you prove God doesn't exist" is a fantastically stupid analogy, and worst, the most obvious one available, the equivalent of a writer comparing a beautiful woman's skin to porcelain, or something "unique like a snowflake". Fitting you would choose it, though, as from what you've shown here I can well imagine you engaged in such, well, reductive arguments.

In short: what have you proven? Nothing.

Exactly. Thanks for playing

[Flash- bd]

In short: what have you proven? Nothing.

Exactly. Thanks for playing

Haha! I love it!

You are like a person who brings a frivolous civil suit (for theft, let say) and fails to present any evidence, only to look at the defendant, and say: Now, I win, unless you can prove to me that you absolutely did not commit the theft!

Now comes the time where the defendant says: good riddance, I'm going home. Pay my court fees and stop bothering me with your asinine allegations!

[MrOrange82]

Haha! I love it! You are like a person who brings a frivolous civil suit (for theft, let say) and fails to present any evidence, only to look at the defendant, and say: Now, I win, unless you can prove to me that you absolutely did not commit the theft!

As a newly-minted lawyer, I take offense at the comparison...but only because you're acting as though one side or another has the burden in a situation like this. As I pointed out, opinions are being argued. Your buddy TA dismissed the idea of Wieters' needing more rest out of hand, as though the idea was completely preposterous and without any reasonable basis. The only person who's argued Wieters IS (i.e., an absolute) XYZ" is TA...and he's the poster you got behind (in the rhetorical sense, of course). I happen to think resting him is something that could be beneficial, TA disagreed clumsily (as per his usual), and your chimed in lazily (with statistics you admitted were incomplete). Then I return with actual innings played, and I'm redirecting the argument and/or erecting straw men?

We're not in a court room, hun. There's no plaintiff, no defendant. No one here's personally responsible for any contested issue. Still...care to explain why you/TA shouldn't be responsible for proving in concrete terms why exhaustion can't explain, or at least contribute to, Wieters' diminished offensive production, given that it was "your" side that laughed the view off as an impossibility?

[Flash- bd]

As a newly-minted lawyer, I take offense at the comparison...but only because you're acting as though one side or another has the burden in a situation like this. As I pointed out, opinions are being argued. Your buddy TA dismissed the idea of Wieters' needing more rest out of hand, as though the idea was completely preposterous and without any reasonable basis. The only person who's argued Wieters IS (i.e., an absolute) XYZ" is TA...and he's the poster you got behind (in the rhetorical sense, of course). I happen to think resting him is something that could be beneficial, TA disagreed clumsily (as per his usual), and your chimed in lazily (with statistics you admitted were incomplete). Then I return with actual innings played, and I'm redirecting the argument and/or erecting straw men?

We're not in a court room, hun. There's no plaintiff, no defendant. No one here's personally responsible for any contested issue. Still...care to explain why you/TA shouldn't be responsible for proving in concrete terms why exhaustion can't explain, or at least contribute to, Wieters' diminished offensive production, given that it was "your" side that laughed the view off as an impossibility?

All the questions you're asking you can answer for yourself if you just go back and read my posts in this thread. In most cases, you're simply asking questions that have little to do--or are only relevant in the most specious sort of way--to anything I've said. Since you're a newly-minted lawyer, I'll continue with the law-analogy: most of your sentences would simply be followed by a good judge saying DISMISSED.

Notice that I entered this thread just 2 pages ago. I think maybe you've conflated TradeAngelos and I into one person, or something...he's not my buddy, I know him less than I do you, I simply saw a poster getting attacked on insubstantial grounds and on a whim decided to back him up. As I'll now say for the last time: I clearly made a bad choice, and have wasted my time.

And please, don't take offense to anything I've said. It's never been my style to get feisty with people on a message board, but your first call-out of me reeked of the kind of "I'm a big poster with thousands of posts and this guy's a little poster with just a handful of post, therefore he's obviously stupider than me!" mentality that I sense a lot of on this board, and rubs me the wrong way. From there, you didn't help your case by making a lot of greasy and manipulative ripostes, and I was basically forced to play out the farce until now, calling you out of them.

[Lucky Jim]

No one is going to establish causality on this message board. There's no way to do it.

We're left w/ three likely possibilities:

1. He's slumping because he's inconsistent.

2. He's slumping because he's tired.

3. He's slumping because he's not very good.

I tend to think that, while (1.) is pretty evident in his career thus far, the choice between (2.) or (3.) is pretty easy in a Pascal's Wager kind of way. I mean, what's the gratification in the argument in (3.)? I know that folks really aren't arguing that he's terrible - a .775 OPS isn't terrible, esp. with his defense - but I also think we're over simplifying a ton of things in this thread.

Initially, I don't think we should excuse Matt's struggles as being due to his fatigue. Nothing is that simple. That said, I was one of the one's who identified fatigue as a factor in his struggles a long time ago.

The problem w/ the gist of this thread is, first, fatigue isn't objective or universal. A pitcher might get hit in the 7th inning (or his 180th inning) because he's tired, and you can't point to Nolan Ryan and Gaylord Perry and say "No." Wieters is a bigger catcher, playing in an era of longer games. I thought he looked fatigued, myself. If so, that's a limitation he has that might be quite separate from any others identified in this thread.

Also, while it's nothing more than hypothesis, there's no doubt that a bit of rest has been positively correlated with him starting to hit again.

I tend to think that Wieters is probably a .820ish OPS guy, who'll have some variations higher-and-lower year-to-year. That said, he may be more than that, and we shouldn't write off that possibility. (Just like I shouldn't write off the possibility that, say, Arrieta will snap to it, or others shouldn't write off Tillman.) I can't help but think that our tendency to write folks off or argue vociferously for pessimistic outcomes has a lot more to do w/ the outsized pleasure we take in being right than it does with being a fan.

[MrOrange82]

All the questions you're asking you can answer for yourself if you just go back and read my posts in this thread. In most cases, you're simply asking questions that have little to do--or are only relevant in the most specious sort of way--to anything I've said. Since you're a newly-minted lawyer, I'll continue with the law-analogy: most of your sentences would simply be followed by a good judge saying DISMISSED.

Notice that I entered this thread just 2 pages ago. I think maybe you've conflated TradeAngelos and I into one person, or something...he's not my buddy, I know him less than I do you, I simply saw a poster getting attacked on insubstantial grounds and on a whim decided to back him up. As I'll now say for the last time: I clearly made a bad choice, and have wasted my time.

And if you'd read carefully (or simply, as I should have, heeded Hooded Viper's straightforward posts), you'd have realized by now that TradeAngelos was "flamed" rightfully. Granted, you may simply lack the familiarity with his work necessary to reach that conclusion, but...

...well, you nailed it. You wasted a substantial amount of time. I'd say the same, but I've been multitasking, so s'all good.

(btw...I love that you're sticking with "absolutes," even at this juncture. Know lots of good judges? Maybe I know a few poor ones )

[Pickles]

No one is going to establish causality on this message board. There's no way to do it.

We're left w/ three likely possibilities:

1. He's slumping because he's inconsistent.

2. He's slumping because he's tired.

3. He's slumping because he's not very good.

I tend to think that, while (1.) is pretty evidenct in his career thus far, the choice between (2.) or (3.) is pretty easy in a Pascal's Wager kind of way. I mean, what's the gratification in the argument in (3.)? I know that folks really aren't arguing that he's terrible - a .775 OPS isn't terrible, esp. with his defense - but I also think we're over simplifying a ton of things in this thread.

Initially, I don't think we should excuse Matt's struggles as being due to his fatigue. Nothing is that simple. That said, I was one of the one's who identified fatigue as a factor in his struggles a long time ago.

The problem w/ the gist of this thread is, irst, fatigue isn't objective or universal. A pitcher might get hit in the 7th inning (or his 180th inning) because he's tired, and you can't point to Nolan Ryan and Gaylord Perry and say "No." Wieters is a bigger catcher, playing in an era of longer games. I thought he looked fatigued, myself. If so, that's a limitation he has that might be quite separate from any others identified in this thread.

Also, while it's nothing more than hypothesis, there's no doubt that a bit of rest has been positively correlated with him starting to hit again.

I tend to think that Wieters is probably a .820ish OPS guy, who'll have some variations higher-and-lower year-to-year. That said, he may be more than that, and we shouldn't write off that possibility. (Just like I shouldn't write off the possibility that, say, Arrieta will snap to it, or others shouldn't write off Tillman.) I can't help but think that our tendency to write folks off or argue vociferously for pessimistic outcomes has a lot more to do w/ the outsized pleasure we take in being right than it does with being a fan.

Regarding the bolded, I just have to ask: Why? What evidence is there to suggest that? He's never come w/i 40 point of that in his career. That seems to be an incredible leap of faith to assume that's what kind of hitter he is; one that is, frankly, not evidence-based.

And I'm not bashing Wieters. Above average hitters, which I agree he is, who play elite defense at C are perennial all-stars.

[Lucky Jim]

No one is going to establish causality on this message board. There's no way to do it.

We're left w/ three likely possibilities:

1. He's slumping because he's inconsistent.

2. He's slumping because he's tired.

3. He's slumping because he's not very good.

I tend to think that, while (1.) is pretty evident in his career thus far, the choice between (2.) or (3.) is pretty easy in a Pascal's Wager kind of way. I mean, what's the gratification in the argument in (3.)? I know that folks really aren't arguing that he's terrible - a .775 OPS isn't terrible, esp. with his defense - but I also think we're over simplifying a ton of things in this thread.

Initially, I don't think we should excuse Matt's struggles as being due to his fatigue. Nothing is that simple. That said, I was one of the one's who identified fatigue as a factor in his struggles a long time ago.

The problem w/ the gist of this thread is, first, fatigue isn't objective or universal. A pitcher might get hit in the 7th inning (or his 180th inning) because he's tired, and you can't point to Nolan Ryan and Gaylord Perry and say "No." Wieters is a bigger catcher, playing in an era of longer games. I thought he looked fatigued, myself. If so, that's a limitation he has that might be quite separate from any others identified in this thread.

Also, while it's nothing more than hypothesis, there's no doubt that a bit of rest has been positively correlated with him starting to hit again.

I tend to think that Wieters is probably a .820ish OPS guy, who'll have some variations higher-and-lower year-to-year. That said, he may be more than that, and we shouldn't write off that possibility. (Just like I shouldn't write off the possibility that, say, Arrieta will snap to it, or others shouldn't write off Tillman.) I can't help but think that our tendency to write folks off or argue vociferously for pessimistic outcomes has a lot more to do w/ the outsized pleasure we take in being right than it does with being a fan.

Obviously, any of (1), (2) or (3) could exist in combination. Is he "not as good" as some think? Sure. Is he tired and inconsistent? Sure. Is he inconsistent because tired? Possibly.