Matt Wieters needs to be benched for a few days

[Lucky Jim]

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.

Because I'm projecting a trajectory that rises then falls? It doesn't seem like much of a leap of faith at all, to me.*

*I'll elaborate. I think his numbers thus far aren't completely reflective of his upside, and expect a break-out up to around an .820ish for a relatively short-peak. Sub-Varitek and Posada. But not static and not linear. Is any non-linear projection that shows improvement not evidence based? I'm curious.

[Pickles]

Because I'm projecting a trajectory that rises than falls? It doesn't seem like much of a leap of faith at all, to me.

If you say so. If I said Matusz was a 3.5 era pitcher would that not be a leap of faith? It's the same thing.

[Pickles]

Or Jones a 35 hr hitter?

[Lucky Jim]

If you say so. If I said Matusz was a 3.5 era pitcher would that not be a leap of faith? It's the same thing.

Or Jones a 35 hr hitter?

Yeah. Exact same thing. Is the problem that I said I think he "is"? I only meant that, basically, by the end of this year/next year, I think he'll be around that level.

I think someone could reasonably see Jones as a 35 HR guy in his prime. Matusz seems more hopeful, though I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he ends up there.

[Pickles]

Because I'm projecting a trajectory that rises then falls? It doesn't seem like much of a leap of faith at all, to me.*

*I'll elaborate. I think his numbers thus far aren't completely reflective of his upside, and expect a break-out up to around an .820ish for a relatively short-peak. Sub-Varitek and Posada. But not static and not linear. Is any non-linear projection that shows improvement not evidence based? I'm curious.

Well, it depends. What evidence do you have that supports your theory of an imminent breakout?

[Pickles]

Yeah. Exact same thing. Is the problem that I said I think he "is"? I only meant that, basically, by the end of this year/next year, I think he'll be around that level.

I think someone could reasonably see Jones as a 35 HR guy in his prime. Matusz seems more hopeful, though I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he ends up there.

Yeah, basically its just me saying Wieters "is" not, at this point, an 820 guy. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if that's what he became, but I don't think we should act as if that's a forgone conclusion.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, it depends. What evidence do you have that supports your theory of an imminent breakout?

Pedigree/scouting reports. College results. Minor league results. What I've seen watching 80% of the games the last couple of years. His MLB stats. I didn't say it was scientific. But it's clearly evidenced-based.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, basically its just me saying Wieters "is" not, at this point, an 820 guy. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if that's what he became, but I don't think we should act as if that's a forgone conclusion.

Well, my "tend to think probably" an ".820ish" guy is pretty "foregone conclusion," to be sure. Nothing like being nitpicked on one point of a long post in a long thread.

[Flash- bd]

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 )

Again, you undermine your own purposes...you paint me as speaking absolutes (when actually I wasn't, which is funny) yet state such facile conclusions, "TradeAngelos was flamed rightfully", with such absolute and obfuscating words as "rightfully".

Please man: as I expressed above, I'm tired of ragging on your nonsense, please stop supplying me with absurdly obvious material. I'm totally serious.

I can assume Lucky Jim's comment, "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," is at least indirectly pointed at me, and it helps me get back to talking about something I'd actually like to talk about, ie, Matt Wieters, so my response is this:

I haven't actually said one negative thing about Wieters in this thread...all I said (go back and look, fellas!) was that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties.

The funny thing is, Wieters is, like the rest of you, actually one of my favorite players...there's no one I would've rather seen hit a HR today than him.

Back to the substance of the discussion: I tend to think Wieters is about an .800 OPS guy, well above his current career OPS, but well-below some people's expectations for him (and a little below Lucky Jim's evaluation), I'm sure. We've seen him get into these long, hard slumps many times in his career, and I think--despite the fact he will look like a world-beater at times--he will continue to struggle with such slumps throughout his career, which will make him a guy who tends to plateau out at about an .800 OPS even though he really looks like something else. He might have some years at .850, some years at .750, a lot of it, I think, comes down to chance and how-long and when his slumps hit him during the season.

My other (latent) point was this: maybe Wieters would benefit from a rest, maybe his numbers would go up with more rest, but that doesn't change his performance is what it is given how much he plays. We have to factor that into our evaluation of the player: ie, negatively affected by workload more than other top catchers. That for me, is another reason why it's a very lame excuse: even in the very-hard-to-suggest case that it does have explanatory value at this point in the season, it still isn't so much an excuse for Wieters' offensive performance as it is a qualification. An interesting excuse, for me, is one that has to do with temporary, fleeting circumstances, which, when removed, will betoken better performance. Unless Wieters starts complaining to Buck and asking for more days off--a possibility which seems less likely than the opposite result--EVEN if Wieters' supposed fatigue is the root of his issues, it will continue to be so.

I guess it just ultimately comes down to me giving Wieters and Buck, along with the data presented, a little bit more credit. If Wieters were magically going to go from a .750 OPS to an .830 OPS by getting more games off--or even easier, given we are an AL team (even more reason to suggest it's not the case, given we have this opportunity available to us), giving him more games at DH--I think Buck and Wieters would make that happen.

Again, I can't believe I'm still arguing this point. It seems so boring and obvious to me--and simple to boot--that its almost q testament to the strength of the delusion in some of you.

[OFFNY]

.

I just read about Adam Jones and his sore wrist in the other thread.

You know, I don't think that benching anyone is really an option at this point. It's more like ........

BUCK: "Are you injured?"

PLAYER: "No."

BUCK: "Then get the **** out there and play."

[Pickles]

Well, my "tend to think probably" an ".820ish" guy is pretty "foregone conclusion," to be sure. Nothing like being nitpicked on one point of a long post in a long thread.

Fair enough. I just thought in terms of this conversation, to act as if Wieters' failure to put up an 820 ops could possibly be attributed to not enough rest, and not that fact, that maybe he just isn't that kind of hitter, or at the very least isn't that hitter yet, was misguided.

[Lucky Jim]

Fair enough. I just thought in terms of this conversation, to act as if Wieters' failure to put up an 820 ops could possibly be attributed to not enough rest, and not that fact, that maybe he just isn't that kind of hitter, or at the very least isn't that hitter yet, was misguided.

Did I do that? I specifically stated that nothing could be completely explained by fatigue.

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.

[Pickles]

Did I do that? I specifically stated that nothing could be completely explained by fatigue.

Well, my "possibly attributed" is your "completely explained."

[MrOrange82]

Again, you undermine your own purposes...you paint me as speaking absolutes (when actually I wasn't, which is funny) yet state such facile conclusions, "TradeAngelos was flamed rightfully", with such absolute and obfuscating words as "rightfully".

Please man: as I expressed above, I'm tired of ragging on your nonsense, please stop supplying me with absurdly obvious material. I'm totally serious.

I can assume Lucky Jim's comment, "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," is at least indirectly pointed at me, and it helps me get back to talking about something I'd actually like to talk about, ie, Matt Wieters, so my response is this:

I haven't actually said one negative thing about Wieters in this thread...all I said (go back and look, fellas!) was that TradeAngelos point of Matt Wieters having a career OPS of ~.750 has a lot more explanatory value for why he is currently hitting to the tune of .743 (his career OPS: .743, as it happens) than does the excuse that he is suffering from tired legs at this point in the season, or that the collision with Rodriguez which no one in the club has bothered to comment about since is somehow the impetus for/beginning of his difficulties.

The funny thing is, Wieters is, like the rest of you, actually one of my favorite players...there's no one I would've rather seen hit a HR today than him.

Back to the substance of the discussion: I tend to think Wieters is about an .800 OPS guy, well above his current career OPS, but well-below some people's expectations for him (and a little below Lucky Jim's evaluation), I'm sure. We've seen him get into these long, hard slumps many times in his career, and I think--despite the fact he will look like a world-beater at times--he will continue to struggle with such slumps throughout his career, which will make him a guy who tends to plateau out at about an .800 OPS even though he really looks like something else. He might have some years at .850, some years at .750, a lot of it, I think, comes down to chance and how-long and when his slumps hit him during the season.

My other (latent) point was this: maybe Wieters would benefit from a rest, maybe his numbers would go up with more rest, but that doesn't change his performance is what it is given how much he plays. We have to factor that into our evaluation of the player: ie, negatively affected by workload more than other top catchers. That for me, is another reason why it's a very lame excuse: even in the very-hard-to-suggest case that it does have explanatory value at this point in the season, it still isn't so much an excuse for Wieters' offensive performance as it is a qualification. An interesting excuse, for me, is one that has to do with temporary, fleeting circumstances, which, when removed, will betoken better performance. Unless Wieters starts complaining to Buck and asking for more days off--a possibility which seems less likely than the opposite result--EVEN if Wieters' supposed fatigue is the root of his issues, it will continue to be so.

I guess it just ultimately comes down to me giving Wieters and Buck, along with the data presented, a little bit more credit. If Wieters were magically going to go from a .750 OPS to an .830 OPS by getting more games off--or even easier, given we are an AL team (even more reason to suggest it's not the case, given we have this opportunity available to us), giving him more games at DH--I think Buck and Wieters would make that happen.

Again, I can't believe I'm still arguing this point. It seems so boring and obvious to me--and simple to boot--that its almost q testament to the strength of the delusion in some of you.

I'm tempted to keep writing "nonsense" simply to goad you into penning more self-contradictory novellas. I mean...the idea that you could review the quoted post and think to yourself "yep, that makes perfect sense" is as hilarious as it is puzzling.

Just a couple of fun examples: why would .830 be "magic," but .800 is what he is? Why will Wieters always fall into slumps given sample size on which you base the judgment? Why couldn't Buck/Wieters have reached the conclusion that the benefits of a tired Matt to the pitching staff outweigh the benefits of a well-rested Matt to the offense? And why should such decisions be explained to the public? How often do you hear professional athletes say, to the media, "I'm tired...want out"?

What's especially hysterical (and somewhat sad) is that you clearly don't understand what sparked my part in this argument. I think Wieters might improve his offensive output if he were rested more (and I think he should be rested more). TA said Wieters, Hell or high water, is a .750-.775 guy - period - and dismissed weariness as a potential factor in offensive output. I wasn't debating, haven't debated, and won't debate what Buck will/won't do, because...well, I don't speak to the guy. As indicated above, Wieters may simply be too important to the pitching/defensive scheme to sit/DH enough to where his offense benefits. Still, that was never the issue. The issue was whether .750-.775 represents the extent of his potential.

But please, do go on. Overrun the banks of the Hangout with your wisdom. Haven't had this much fun since I caught my great-grandmother having an animated conversation with her hallway mirror.

[Flash- bd]

I'm tempted to keep writing "nonsense" simply to goad you into penning more self-contradictory novellas. I mean...the idea that you could review the quoted post and think to yourself "yep, that makes perfect sense" is as hilarious as it is puzzling.

Just a couple of fun examples: why would .830 be "magic," but .800 is what he is? Why will Wieters always fall into slumps given sample size on which you base the judgment? Why couldn't Buck/Wieters have reached the conclusion that the benefits of a tired Matt to the pitching staff outweigh the benefits of a well-rested Matt to the offense? And why should such decisions be explained to the public? How often do you hear professional athletes say, to the media, "I'm tired...want out"?

What's especially hysterical (and somewhat sad) is that you clearly don't understand what sparked my part in this argument. I think Wieters might improve his offensive output if he were rested more (and I think he should be rested more). TA said Wieters, Hell or high water, is a .750-.775 guy - period - and dismissed weariness as a potential factor in offensive output. I wasn't debating, haven't debated, and won't debate what Buck will/won't do, because...well, I don't speak to the guy. As indicated above, Wieters may simply be too important to the pitching/defensive scheme to sit/DH enough to where his offense benefits. Still, that was never the issue. The issue was whether .750-.775 represents the extent of his potential.

But please, do go on. Overrun the banks of the Hangout with your wisdom. Haven't had this much fun since I caught my great-grandmother having an animated conversation with her hallway mirror.

You're a real troll, man...I'm surprised you've been around here for 3,300 some posts without making some serious enemies.

Now, for the mundane work of showing your comments for what they are:

1) a jump from .750 OPS to .830 OPS based on possibly 2/3 more off-days sprinkled in (ie, use him at the rate of say Brian McCann, instead of Matt Wieters, a negligible difference, all things considered) would certainly be magic.

--secondly, your point makes no sense unless you have so little sense for tone that you couldn't tell that I was talking about future/long-term projection.

2) "How often do you hear professional athletes say, to the media, "I'm tired...want out?" That you can possibly try to use this as grist, and simultaneously criticize me, is another of the many embarrassing (and hilarious, at least we're getting some laughs out of this) moments you've produced for yourself in this thread.

3)"What's especially hysterical (and somewhat sad) is that you clearly don't understand what sparked my part in this argument". What's especially hysterical is that YOU are the one who attacked ME, for the very reason you find so especially hysterical. You still don't seem to get my argument was, and still is, simply this: accounting for Wieters' lack of expected production at this point of the season with the idea of lack of rest is a very poor excuse.

4) "TA said Wieters, Hell or high water, is a .750-.775 guy - period - and dismissed weariness as a potential factor in offensive output." Still confusing me with TA, I see.

5) " I wasn't debating, haven't debated, and won't debate what Buck will/won't do, because...well, I don't speak to the guy. As indicated above, Wieters may simply be too important to the pitching/defensive scheme to sit/DH enough to where his offense benefits. Still, that was never the issue. The issue was whether .750-.775 represents the extent of his potential. " There you go, redefining the argument again. There has never been mention of the "extent of Wieters potential" in our whole argument.

I won't even tell you to not go on, I'm actually getting to the point where you seem so far lost such that I'm starting to not even feel bad about making fun of your piss poor argumentative/logic/writing/.../.../... skills. It's like when the evangelical comes to you in the streets and you feel bad for turning them down their sermon and pamphlet, but then you hear the extremely wild stuff coming out of their mouth and it starts to be almost amusing.

EDIT:

6) "I'm tempted to keep writing "nonsense" simply to goad you into penning more self-contradictory novellas. I mean...the idea that you could review the quoted post and think to yourself "yep, that makes perfect sense" is as hilarious as it is puzzling. "

You've now given me enough evidence that I can confidently say this, regarding your case: the complicated often seems hilarious, puzzling, and nonsensical to those that lack the resources to understand properly.